View Full Version : Chester Hifi Show 2018
sunbeamgls
15-04-2018, 15:28
Not sure if anyone else made it along, but my pics and thoughts at the link below.
Lots of Naim partnered with Focal, Kudos, Russell K and more. Also Dynaudio, Auralic, ATC, Hegel, Proj-ject and more.
https://audiophilemusings.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/acoustica-chester-show-april-2018.html
Good report - thanks for sharing :).
hifinutt
15-04-2018, 15:52
thanks neil as ever ,
George47
15-04-2018, 18:15
Nice write up.
I agree that Naim and expensive Focal just do not work and the cheaper Focals or Kudos work far, far better. I know the business arrangement but it letting down the electronics side of things. Hey ho, a strange world. As Naim becomes far more civilised they spoil it with aggressive speakers. Same with B&W speakers.
Reading that, I'm sure a lot of people are glad they didn't bother attending, 1000s of £'s of kit that sounded crap ( mostly ) [emoji848]
Zoidburg
16-04-2018, 08:17
We (wife & I) went along to the Acoustica show on Sunday morning, I must admit I wasn't expecting much but even so came away fairly despondent about the whole thing.
It started off well as I thought the Hotel venue was very good, plenty of parking for attendees and inside it was plush and modern which was nice. The rooms were arranged mainly on the ground floor and though most were large double bedroom size there were at least a couple of much bigger function rooms being used as well (a large room using naim amps & some hefty B&W speakers and again another probably bigger room using naim and some Focal Utopia speakers maybe)
I have a couple of main gripes with the whole thing such as the following
1. The choice of music throughout was awful. I know music is a personal thing but jesus just play something that puts a smile on people faces as opposed to some perceived audiophile rubbish.
2. At one point (we were the only people in the room at this stage) I asked for a certain track to be played, the salesman said "yes that's going on next" and then proceeded to ignore me, faff about changing some leads and then play some thing completely different despite my request. The wife and I looked at each other then left the room thinking what's the point.
3. Despite the costs of everything (in some cases up to £100K in one room) I didn't hear a single thing that really made me think "WOW", in most cases I'm sure this was down to what was being played but seriously they must be able to do better than this??
4. The show was really only focused on streaming & streamers and I only saw 1 project TT in the whole event. This was backed up by a very poor selection of new "audiophile pressing" vinyl on sale which took about 5 minutes to look through. Maybe this was down to the choice of Naim for amplification, do they do much in the way of Turntables & phonostages?
4. My overriding impression as we left was that it felt to me like perhaps what it was. An event to sell (very) expensive hi-fi to mainly middle class men fast approaching middle age or retirement who feel like they must have "a serious stereo". I actually overheard a loud conversation in which a man was discussing the poor reliability of his Ferrari and how he expects better from his hifi" - first world problems eh?!
Probably fair to say that I wont bother attending the event next year:D
Nice write up.
I agree that Naim and expensive Focal just do not work and the cheaper Focals or Kudos work far, far better. I know the business arrangement but it letting down the electronics side of things. Hey ho, a strange world. As Naim becomes far more civilised they spoil it with aggressive speakers. Same with B&W speakers.
What exactly is an 'aggressive speaker'?
Firebottle
16-04-2018, 16:15
Glad I didn't attend after your points Ben.
Mind you with your kit list I don't suppose you have any problem getting a great sound at home.
Zoidburg
16-04-2018, 17:44
Glad I didn't attend after your points Ben.
Mind you with your kit list I don't suppose you have any problem getting a great sound at home.
Id have been even more annoyed if i'd have travelled a long way for it but thankfully I was only 30 mins away. I'm still in shock about the price of some of the kit displayed compared to the actual sounds heard......makes me feel even better about my stuff:D
fatmarley
16-04-2018, 18:08
What exactly is an 'aggressive speaker'?
Ian paisley?
Generally, I am disappointed with the music choices at hifi shows, though I am often surprised by the musical choices of audiophiles too: how many Dire Straits and Pink Floyd records can one repeatedly listen to? At shows, Shelby Lynne, Floyd, Fink, James Blake, Straits and shit jazz seems the norm, and that's on a good day!
Surely, the music has to come first. Sounding great is a bonus but not the raison-d'etre. I have heard too many of us only listening to music that sounds good, and that limits the variety of music listened to significantly.
Generally, I am disappointed with the music choices at hifi shows, though I am often surprised by the musical choices of audiophiles too: how many Dire Straits and Pink Floyd records can one repeatedly listen to? At shows, Shelby Lynne, Floyd, Fink, James Blake, Straits and shit jazz seems the norm, and that's on a good day!
Surely, the music has to come first. Sounding great is a bonus but not the raison-d'etre. I have heard too many of us only listening to music that sounds good, and that limits the variety of music listened to significantly.
if you take a system that is balanced to impress with audiophile recordings, which many of these show systems are, that's all they can take a chance on playing. A simple mix, no chance of stressing the amp or the speakers, so the edginess will not show up. In fact the edginess makes the audiophile recording sound more 'real' and impressive. Put on a densely mixed bit of rock and you've got an unlistenable noise coming from your £50K worth of kit.
This is why you get a certain sub-set of enthusiast who is always complaining about the supposedly terrible production on rock and pop.
montesquieu
17-04-2018, 07:26
Generally, I am disappointed with the music choices at hifi shows, though I am often surprised by the musical choices of audiophiles too: how many Dire Straits and Pink Floyd records can one repeatedly listen to? At shows, Shelby Lynne, Floyd, Fink, James Blake, Straits and shit jazz seems the norm, and that's on a good day!
Surely, the music has to come first. Sounding great is a bonus but not the raison-d'etre. I have heard too many of us only listening to music that sounds good, and that limits the variety of music listened to significantly.
Try asking for classical!
Naim actually have their own record label and some good LP titles, but bizarrely they didn’t bring any to the Bristol show barring one (unknown) recording they wanted to promote - an LP they didn’t offer any facility to listen to.
Whoever their marketing director is deserves to be fired.
Ammonite Audio
17-04-2018, 07:55
Try asking for classical!
Naim actually have their own record label and some good LP titles, but bizarrely they didn’t bring any to the Bristol show barring one (unknown) recording they wanted to promote - an LP they didn’t offer any facility to listen to.
Whoever their marketing director is deserves to be fired.
Anyone coming to the North West Audio Show in June is welcome to ask me to play anything they like, including classical, on vinyl or CD! I'll be doing mono, too.
Audio Al
17-04-2018, 15:06
Ian paisley?
:lol::D
Audio Al
17-04-2018, 15:09
What exactly is an 'aggressive speaker'?
I would think something that makes your ears bleed and you want to switch off :eek: sound wise
I would think something that makes your ears bleed and you want to switch off :eek: sound wise
Maybe, but I don't know of anyone making speakers like that.
Hi Ben,
2. At one point (we were the only people in the room at this stage) I asked for a certain track to be played, the salesman said "yes that's going on next" and then proceeded to ignore me, faff about changing some leads and then play some thing completely different despite my request. The wife and I looked at each other then left the room thinking what's the point.
If the person concerned was, Geoff, the owner of Acoustica (whom I know well), I'm a little surprised, as he's usually switched on enough to know that's not how to treat your potential customers. Btw, the Ferrari could well have been his, as he loves his sports cars!;)
Since I gave up on Naim (and indeed most currently produced hi-fi equipment), I no longer attend 'hi-fi shows' that are designed simply to promote a particular dealer's product range, in this case that of Acoustica.
However, I'm surprised that the sounds heard by visitors weren't better, as he used to know what he was doing.
Marco.
if you take a system that is balanced to impress with audiophile recordings, which many of these show systems are, that's all they can take a chance on playing. A simple mix, no chance of stressing the amp or the speakers, so the edginess will not show up. In fact the edginess makes the audiophile recording sound more 'real' and impressive. Put on a densely mixed bit of rock and you've got an unlistenable noise coming from your £50K worth of kit.
This is why you get a certain sub-set of enthusiast who is always complaining about the supposedly terrible production on rock and pop.
It's a bit of a conundrum. Usually I find stunning rock systems don't do simpler music with magic. It's certainly possible to find a decent compromise but if you want that certain magic with simpler high quality recordings then a good rock system doesn't cut it. Multiple systems and rooms.......and deep pockets is one answer.
sunbeamgls
17-04-2018, 20:29
Hi Ben,
If the person concerned was, Geoff, the owner of Acoustica (whom I know well), I'm a little surprised, as he's usually switched on enough to know that's not how to treat your potential customers. Btw, the Ferrari could well have been his, as he loves his sports cars!;)
Since I gave up on Naim (and indeed most currently produced hi-fi equipment), I no longer attend 'hi-fi shows' that are designed simply to promote a particular dealer's product range, in this case that of Acoustica.
However, I'm surprised that the sounds heard by visitors weren't better, as he used to know what he was doing.
Marco.
Marco
It won't have been Geoff - he's running the show, not the rooms, of which there were around 10-15. I think he's more of a Porsche guy, from what I gather.
As for the sounds, the reports are pretty consistent, however surprised you might be.
sunbeamgls
17-04-2018, 20:30
It's a bit of a conundrum. Usually I find stunning rock systems don't do simpler music with magic. It's certainly possible to find a decent compromise but if you want that certain magic with simpler high quality recordings then a good rock system doesn't cut it. Multiple systems and rooms.......and deep pockets is one answer.
Surely a good system is just that, regardless of the musical genre? If it favours a particular genre, I would suggest that its not a good system, unless that was the deliberate intent of whoever put the system together, which is fine of course.
What exactly is an 'aggressive speaker'?
Zu, for example.
I live down the road from Acoustica and the Doubletree in Chester. I drive past both at least twice a week, I didn't even know the show was taking place until it was too late to go.
Marco
It won't have been Geoff - he's running the show, not the rooms, of which there were around 10-15. I think he's more of a Porsche guy, from what I gather.
As for the sounds, the reports are pretty consistent, however surprised you might be.
Hi Neil,
Yup, but he's normally rather hands on and fussy about standards, so I'm surprised the folk working for him weren't 'up to snuff'... Not to worry, the proof of the pudding is in what you experienced at the show, which is disappointing :(
Yes I know he's a Porsche guy, but he's also into other types of nice cars, so a Ferrari wouldn't be out of the question. Bad attitude and poor sounds... Standards have slipped at Acoustica since I was there!
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
22-04-2018, 19:40
Zu, for example.
I told my Zu Omen Defs that you called them aggressive, and they're coming round to kick your ass!
Only kidding, I managed to calm them down by playing some Norah Jones
Pigmy Pony
22-04-2018, 19:46
Anyone coming to the North West Audio Show in June is welcome to ask me to play anything they like, including classical, on vinyl or CD! I'll be doing mono, too.
I'll be asking for "Big Six" by Judge Dread
Ammonite Audio
23-04-2018, 05:24
I'll be asking for "Big Six" by Judge Dread
Whatever that is, I'll still play it.
Pigmy Pony
23-04-2018, 17:17
Thanks Hugo, but I won't hold you to that. Like "F**k Off" by Wayne County And The Electric Chairs, it's a song that'll clear a room.
Look forward to seeing you at the show though, with a more appropriate request :)
jandl100
25-04-2018, 07:36
It's a bit of a conundrum. Usually I find stunning rock systems don't do simpler music with magic. It's certainly possible to find a decent compromise but if you want that certain magic with simpler high quality recordings then a good rock system doesn't cut it. Multiple systems and rooms.......and deep pockets is one answer.
Spot on, Clive, no system does it all.
Given the amazing breadth of what is called music it would be astonishing if one system could cover it all.
A system which can really boogie with reggae music will likely fall flat on its face when asked to present a string quartet or girl with guitar or Peruvian nose flute.
All any of us do is select a system that covers our own limited choice of music as best it can.
You do see reports of mega rich buggers who have multiple top flight systems, and the rooms to put them in, to address this very issue.
A system which can really boogie with reggae music will likely fall flat on its face when asked to present a string quartet or girl with guitar or Peruvian nose flute.
Sorry, Jerry. I disagree, although just with the "fall flat on its face" bit :)
In my view, a really good system ('tuned' to the musical tastes of its owner, if the owner has good ears), and taking the above as an example, should excel with reggae music *or* when presenting a string quartet (whichever its owner prefers), and do justice to the other, i.e. reproduce it with some competence, not fall flat on its face.
If a system falls flat on its face, when reproducing ANY kind of music, then it's not fit for purpose. A really good system should do justice to ALL types of music, albeit excelling with some more than others. I'd expect your system to do that, not fall flat on its face, as indeed does mine.
Marco.
jandl100
25-04-2018, 08:14
My experience, repeated on many occasions, is that a system set up by someone who doesn't listen at all to classical but that is really enjoyable at rock music is very seldom acceptable with classical ... I mean grossly flawed, horrible! Unlistenable. Errr, falls flat on its face.
The response I usually get is an unconcerned shrug and "but I don't listen to classical".
And that's fair enough, imo.
Well, not for me it wouldn't. My system, although not perfect (no system is) plays all types of music to a high standard, including classical, which I listen to a lot, and that should apply to any really good system worthy of the name.
The problem is, too many folks have rather insular tastes in music, and that ultimately reflects on how they sound!;)
Marco.
jandl100
25-04-2018, 08:21
But you listen to some classical and therefore that is included in the musical mix when you set up your system.
My point, and I suspect it is not limited to classical, is that a musical genre not in a system builder's preference box has to take pot luck if it is played on that system - and often the results will not be pretty!
Yes I agree with that, but the answer lies in your first sentence... The wider the musical mix put through it, the better the system is likely to be set up (and thus sound).
If folk had wider tastes in music in the first place (rather than just listening to one main genre), and therefore got the opportunity to TEST their system regularly with it, not simply tailor it to handle one genre well, they should end up not only with a better sounding system (as different types of music will challenge it differently, and highlight its inherent flaws, thus allowing you the opportunity to address them), but also one that will ultimately be able to do justice to a wider range of music.
That's my point :)
Marco.
jandl100
25-04-2018, 08:28
A few years back I visited Tom (montesq) and listened to his modded Quad 57-based system. (This was before he got infected with Tannoyism ;) )
It sounded utterly superb on his choice of music - small scale, solo vocal, solo instrument. I have still not heard anything as good in that regard.
But it just couldn't cope with large scale orchestral, no weight no power no sense of the sheer scale of it all.
Now that was a system finely tuned to excel in one particular way!
jandl100
25-04-2018, 08:34
I suspect that system of Tom's would also have excelled with Peruvian nose flute, but I don't recall us trying that so I can't be sure.
A few years back I visited Tom (montesq) and listened to his modded Quad 57-based system. (This was before he got infected with Tannoyism ;) )
It sounded utterly superb on his choice of music - small scale, solo vocal, solo instrument. I have still not heard anything as good in that regard.
But it just couldn't cope with large scale orchestral, no weight no power no sense of the sheer scale of it all.
Now that was a system finely tuned to excel in one particular way!
Sure, but it would be completely useless to me, as one minute I can be listening to Bach, and the next Bad Religion, with perhaps some Baby Schulz in between! ;)
The only way it would work, would be if I had different systems, each 'tuned' to excel with specific types of music, and dedicated rooms to house them in. Maybe one day:eyebrows:
Marco.
jandl100
25-04-2018, 08:53
That's interesting. Can you elaborate? In what way is it unlistenable?
In my opinion the "problem" with classical music is that it has a very wide dynamic range so when the quiet bits are at a sensible volume the loud bits can demand more power/weight/scale/volume than the system can provide. Also, with so many instruments playing the system needs to maintain separation between them or else it turns into a confusing mess.
Is that what you meant?
Yup, that.
But also to many people's ears rock music seems to "sound best" when the upper bass is thinned out and the treble somewhat accentuated. It's livelier, more exciting, faster. It's the Flat Earth sound. I've heard systems where it makes a grand piano sound like an upright honky-tonk.
When playing classical, such a system is often a bit to a lot screechy and hollow sounding. The screech also often results in a graininess to the sound,
The overall result can be a quite hilarious parody of the actual instruments being played.
-- they really are enjoyable and impressive playing rock music, though.
But also to many people's ears rock music seems to "sound best" when the upper bass is thinned out and the treble somewhat accentuated.
Well that's simply because they don't understand how rock music should sound (if the recording is good enough to show it), and instead merely go on what they think "sounds best" (as outlined above), which is fine if there's only you to please. That practice falls down, however, when someone else who knows better listens, and can clearly hear what's wrong!;)
The problem is, and this applies to all types of music; not enough people who are into hi-fi regularly attend live music concerts or gigs, acoustic or amplified respectively, to get a proper 'handle' on how stuff is supposed to sound, thus how to build a system that can do it justice. At the end of the day, you have to 'educate' your ears, in that respect, to know what sounds right and what doesn't - and that can only happen by learning from experience.
Instead, most just rely on recordings of such (on CD, vinyl or whatever), and that will never 'train' your ears enough to differentiate between what, as outlined above, sounds real (as much as the recording allows) or false, and ultimately how to build a system that gives you goosebumps and stirs your emotions, when playing your favourite music.
Of course, that's if the goal with your system is, as far as possible, to faithfully recreate a snapshot of the original sound [hi-fi], rather than simply make a noise you like the sound of, as shown in your example earlier.... The two can be quite different!
For some, the latter is all that matters, and that's fine as it's their choice, but when you listen to a system like that, compared with one belonging to someone more experienced (who's been out and about listening to live music more, over the years), and thus has a better handle on how things are supposed to sound, it's easy to hear its shortcomings.
Marco.
For example, a piano recording for rock/pop will be close miked and have that in-yer-face sound, whereas a classical recording will be miked at more of a distance in suitable acoustic space and sound completely different.
Indeed, and a really good system will reproduce both sounds with the requisite ability, to allow the listener to accurately differentiate between the two.
Marco.
montesquieu
25-04-2018, 10:12
Indeed, and a really good system will reproduce both sounds with the requisite ability, to allow the listener to accurately differentiate between the two.
Marco.
My setup does rock just as well as it does classical, though I usually stick a moving magnet cartridge on in place of something more focused on capturing nuance - something like a Shure SC25C or M3D, or latterly a Tonar Diabolic E. It's not that these cartridges don't do detail, but that they emphasise a big full, ballsy sound which is what rock needs. (Though actually they do more rhythmic jazz pretty well too). A big ballsy deck like a Garrard 401 helps with this too.
Recorded rock is a different beast from what you get at gigs though, rock gigs are raw and not nuanced in the least. If you want that kind of racket in your house all you need to do is run cable into a PA stack - almost nobody does that for very good reasons. In most rock recordings there is quite a bit of nuance there and you might well want to hear some nice use of space with placement of instruments and a bit of venue ambience - it's just a different balance of priorities (hence the cartridge swap).
I've been without my Hi-Fi since Nov, and am surprised at the degree to which I am starting to hear sounds in reality which previously I had been oblivious to, for eg. the bass accompanying peeing into the bowl, and the real sound of bass from helicopters and cars.
My setup does rock just as well as it does classical, though I usually stick a moving magnet cartridge on in place of something more focused on capturing nuance - something like a Shure SC25C or M3D, or latterly a Tonar Diabolic E. It's not that these cartridges don't do detail, but that they emphasise a big full, ballsy sound which is what rock needs. (Though actually they do more rhythmic jazz pretty well too).
Agreed, and that's why (as you know only too well), it's handy having a few different cartridges [and a detachable headshell arm to facilitate their use], all set up and ready to go, and which optimise different types of music :)
Recorded rock is a different beast from what you get at gigs though, rock gigs are raw and not nuanced in the least. If you want that kind of racket in your house all you need to do is run cable into a PA stack - almost nobody does that for very good reasons. In most rock recordings there is quite a bit of nuance there and you might well want to hear some nice use of space with placement of instruments and a bit of venue ambience - it's just a different balance of priorities (hence the cartridge swap).
Absolutely, and I fully concur with what you're saying. However, with enough experience (and a good recording of a live rock gig), plus the right equipment and speakers, all optimally set up, you can get a hi-fi system to recreate a convincing enough 'snapshot' [the 'feel' and intensity] of that live gig, without having to use a PA stack.
I know, because I own many such recordings, and have often attended the gigs in question, in order to make a valid comparison. I was there, therefore I know how it sounded - and I can rattle my rib cage fairly easily, and 'suspend disbelief', by taking myself back to that gig in Düsseldorf, with a a nice bit of Rammstein! :hairmetal::hairmetal::fingers::fingers:
Essentially, it's about shifting plenty of air, so very large speakers are required, along with a powerful enough amp to drive and control them cleanly at high levels.
What also helps is if the sound generated is able to pressurise the room, so you can create the required visceral impact, and 'feel' the sound, as well as hear it, in order to convincingly portray [at least to some degree] the 'trouser-flapping' effect you get at most rock gigs.
Therefore it's very important to get the speaker/room interface and amplifier/speaker relationship right, and also ensure you have enough power available, to do what needs done. In my system, 95db efficient 15" Tannoy MGs in very large (inert) cabinets, driven by 50W of quality valve power, most of which is in Class A, used in a smallish (but acoustically sound) room, certainly manages it with sufficient aplomb!;)
Marco.
Yup, that.
But also to many people's ears rock music seems to "sound best" when the upper bass is thinned out and the treble somewhat accentuated. It's livelier, more exciting, faster. It's the Flat Earth sound. I've heard systems where it makes a grand piano sound like an upright honky-tonk.
When playing classical, such a system is often a bit to a lot screechy and hollow sounding. The screech also often results in a graininess to the sound,
The overall result can be a quite hilarious parody of the actual instruments being played.
-- they really are enjoyable and impressive playing rock music, though.
Flat earth systems are just poor systems in general. I'd disagree that they sound good with rock music. Maybe if it is a lush production, otherwise they just sound thin and hard, albeit 'fast'. I know exactly what you mean about the honky-tonk piano. Nothing to do with the actual piano used or the way it was recorded, it's the balance of the system. Everything on edge to make it sound 'exciting' or as the proponents would say, 'like live music.' It's fake hi-fi, and it's why flat earth proponents are always complaining about recording quality.
Talking of rock gigs, I'll be going to this in August:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq90/924/KpZddy.png
We're lucky to have a pretty thriving music scene around here :cool:
Marco.
Flat earth systems are just poor systems in general. I'd disagree that they sound good with rock music. Maybe if it is a lush production, otherwise they just sound thin and hard, albeit 'fast'.
I completely agree. That's why, whilst acknowledging what it did well (after all I lived with it happily for over 5 years), I moved away from my Naim system and embraced some glowing bottles, especially when I heard how, when done properly, you could, as it were, have your cake and eat it...;)
Btw, I fully expect you to achieve a similar realistic sounding 'snapshot' of rock music, such as I get in my system, when your Tannoys are built, and unleash the Krell on them!:eyebrows:
Marco.
I've never understood the "it sounds like the gig" argument when it comes to rock music. What you're hearing at a (large) rock gig is the PA, and most rock gigs I've been to - and I've been to a lot - sound fairly horrible. However, you put up with it because "the event" and it's atmosphere and sense of occasion are more important than the quality of the sound.
Indeed, but in terms of the goals we have with our systems, as hi-fi enthusiasts (to try and reproduce the original sound as accurately as possible), then surely if you're playing a good live recording of a rock gig, especially one at which you attended, then you want it to sound as close as possible (in the right way) to how it did when you were there?
And there are ways and means of achieving that, without it sounding like you're listening to a bad PA stack. That's certainly what I strive to do with appropriate recordings.
Fortunately, in that respect,, I live in a detached house with very solid walls, and have no immediate neighbours!:D;)
Marco.
You're not listening to a recording of the PA system though, your listening to a recording of the feed from the desk, and any subsequent post-production they have done on it, overdubs etc ; there are all sorts of tweaks they can do. So it's no different to a studio album in that respect.
For true accuracy you need to recreate how it sounded in the mastering suite. Good luck!
You're not listening to a recording of the PA system though, your listening to a recording of the feed from the desk...
Precisely, which is why you can get the music to sound good in your system, rather than like a distorted PA stack!;)
Plus, if you play it loudly enough, and your system can handle that properly, without it falling apart [easier said than done], you can successfully recreate a snapshot of the visceral impact and 'trouser-flapping' effect you experienced at the gig - all combining to help you experience some of what you did when you were there, and therefore make what you hear at home with the recording, sound more convincing.
For me, with that type of music, that's the whole point of owning the type of system I do. Different rules of course may apply with some other types of music.
Marco.
Yes, not everyone wants it presented like that, with all the visceral impact, and that's understandable even if it does make them a bit odd ;)
Firebottle
25-04-2018, 16:35
We have been to a couple of gigs at the Robin 2 very recently, JCM and a Dire Straits tribute called Money For Nothing.
Everything was miked through the PA and didn't lack any visceral impact but it was too loud.
The venue is quite a reverberant space with hard walls and domed ceiling and I think it would sound better turned down a notch.
Afterwards I asked the sound engineer what the max rating of the PA was, for interest, and he said it was 6kW. It is an old Peavy installation and had been running at 1kW output so he said.
Yes, not everyone wants it presented like that, with all the visceral impact, and that's understandable even if it does make them a bit odd ;)
Lol... I think Tony Sallis (Coherent) is on record saying something along the lines of people have a 'realism scale' that they want (and can handle) from their systems, from 1-10.
Me? In that respect, I'm a 10, whereas some folks may only be a 6 or 7... I think it's a valid point, and obviously based on his considerable experience of selling all manner of different systems to his customers!
Plus, you can want to be a 10, but simply not possess the knowledge or necessary experience to build such a system, or indeed have the wherewithal to buy it in the first place.
Marco.
jandl100
25-04-2018, 17:42
I want to be an 8.
Dynamically, I often want the music at a bit less than full throttle.
In terms of transparency and detail I want to be a 12.
Mrs J has been known to say (critically) that you can hear more of what's going on with my system than at a typical concert.
So maybe I average out at 10.
Cool... As far as I'm concerned, nothing can ever sound 'too real', so I want it, warts and all! I would never deliberately 'tone down' a recording. It simply is what it is.
However, whether I've actually achieved a 10, in the respect, with my system is another matter. I've certainly striven for it :)
Marco.
P.S You can have dynamics, transparency AND detail. They aren't mutually exclusive!;)
jandl100
25-04-2018, 17:54
P.S You can have dynamics, transparency and detail. They aren't mutually exclusive!;)
Sure.
But my preference is for 8 & 12, resp.
But, if you can, why not try and have it all...? I would never knowingly trade one for the other. For me, that's a sure way of turning a system into a one (or two)-trick pony!
Marco.
jandl100
25-04-2018, 18:02
Because I don't usually want to be slammed against the wall.
It can be fun, but mostly not. It's not what I am really into music for.
I prefer it to be a bit toned down dynamically, to be just a bit relaxed - I can hear a bit more of what is going on then in other respects, imo.
Fair enough, it's your system. I just don't do any deliberate tailoring. I want to hear the maximum amount of musical information any recording, and my system, will allow.
When you're at a live classical concert, you don't ask the musicians on trumpet if they would mind toning it down a bit. You enjoy the sound as it is... And depending where you're sitting in the hall concerned, it could take your head off!:eyebrows:
I seek to achieve the same type of realism from my system at home, based on the recording I'm forced to work with. For me, that's what hi-fi is all about :)
Marco.
brian2957
25-04-2018, 18:10
Because I don't usually want to be slammed against the wall.
It can be fun, but mostly not. It's not what I am really into music for.
I prefer it to be a bit toned down dynamically, to be just a bit relaxed - I can hear a bit more of what is going on then in other respects, imo.
+1...I couldn't have put that better myself Jerry :)
jandl100
25-04-2018, 18:13
When I visited MartinT the musical slamming against the wall was hugely impressive, it was "laugh out loud" astonishing. But his system missed out on so much else that is of higher value to me musically.
Some of my favourite albums just failed to grip in the way that they do in my system. They were boring. It was quite shocking.
It just wasn't a set of compromises that I would accept.
Maybe you can have it all, I don't know, I somehow doubt it - so I choose the compromises that make most sense to me for my way of enjoying the music I like to listen to.
+1...I couldn't have put that better myself Jerry...
I must say I'm rather surprised, as you don't 'voice' your cables that way, and which I've always found as very neutral and revealing... So how do you go about 'toning down your system, dynamically', Brian? :)
Marco.
When I visited MartinT the musical slamming against the wall was hugely impressive, it was "laugh out loud" astonishing. But his system missed out on so much else that is of higher value to me musically.
Some of my favourite albums just failed to grip in the way that they do in my system. They were boring. It was quite shocking.
It just wasn't a set of compromises that I would accept.
Interesting, was that in his new house or his old one? If it was the latter, then I can kind of see where you're coming from, although I wouldn't necessarily have put it quite like that. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that's the way it has to be!
Maybe you can have it all, I don't know, I somehow doubt it - so I choose the compromises that make most sense to me for my way of enjoying the music I like to listen to.
You're missing the point, mate. It not about HAVING it all (which I suspect is simply a pipe dream); it's about striving to have it all. As you'll appreciate, there's a difference!
From what you've stated, however, you're not striving to have it all; you're deliberately making choices NOT to have it all...... If that's what you like, fine, but it's not something I'd ever choose to do.
Marco.
jandl100
25-04-2018, 18:27
When you're at a live classical concert, you don't ask the musicians on trumpet if they would mind turning it down a few notches. You enjoy the sound as it is... And it should take your head off!:eyebrows:
Ah, but should it take your head off?
There's a fave classical track for orchestral slam - on the Decca label. Albeniz' Suite Espanola.
I've heard it on MartinT's LP rig - and that was the laugh out loud experience. Astonishing!!! :lol:
But I wondered at the time how realistic it actually was - I was and remain hugely doubtful if you would ever actually hear that kind of percussive shock wave in a concert hall.
Out of curiosity, I bought a CD of that same recording.
-- different world entirely. No over-emphasised SLAM, just a natural series of orchestral sforzandi*. Hugely less impressive in a way, but far far more natural imho.
[* Sforzando sfz is an indication to make a strong, sudden accent on a note or chord. Sforzando literally means subito forzando (fz), which translates to “suddenly with force.]
So, I think some systems exaggerate dynamics in an impressive but unnatural way.
An orchestra should not "take your head off".
Electronic music - sure, if the sound system allows it and/or it's on the recording.
Ah, but should it take your head off?
Have you ever sat in the same room, close to where someone's playing a trumpet? If so, the answer is YES!;)
Otherwise, how intense that sound is will depend on how far you're away from it. So the answer to what's right, in a hi-fi sense, is simply how it was meant to sound originally, which hopefully the recording has captured, and in turn your system is able to deliver!
In that respect, if the sound of the trumpet originally was loud enough to take your head off, and the recording taken of it captured that sound faithfully, then that's the sound an accurate system playing that recording will reproduce. And vice versa, if it wasn't.
Got to nip out for a bit, but will continue this later :)
Marco.
montesquieu
25-04-2018, 18:43
Because I don't usually want to be slammed against the wall.
It can be fun, but mostly not. It's not what I am really into music for.
I prefer it to be a bit toned down dynamically, to be just a bit relaxed - I can hear a bit more of what is going on then in other respects, imo.
+2 FWIW. The Tannoys with the STA100 can quite easily put out a shockingly big wave of sound but I didn't actually find that out till Justin visited!
Aye, because Justers (like me) is not really a "toned down" or "relaxed" kinda guy, and showed you how your system should sound! :ner::D
;)
Marco.
+2 FWIW. The Tannoys with the STA100 can quite easily put out a shockingly big wave of sound but I didn't actually find that out till Justin visited!
I take it you have the Radford at last then? Cool.
Considering the size of the driver in each speaker, they do well on scale. I was surprised. They can't do "wall of bass" like mine, but the bass panel is at least 3-4 times the surface area of your cone!
Anyway I am convinced your Tannoys are a flook, Tom. I've never heard a pair that good elsewhere at below silly cost.
I bet they are better than Marcos. Much, much, much better;):lol: (spot the wind up). Still, til Marco gets the balls to go see you... and get his heart broken, he will never know.:(
montesquieu
25-04-2018, 20:29
I take it you have the Radford at last then? Cool.
Considering the size of the driver in each speaker, they do well on scale. I was surprised. They can't do "wall of bass" like mine, but the bass panel is at least 3-4 times the surface area of your cone!
Anyway I am convinced your Tannoys are a flook, Tom. I've never heard a pair that good elsewhere at below silly cost.
I bet they are better than Marcos. Much, much, much better;):lol: (spot the wind up). Still, til Marco gets the balls to go see you... and get his heart broken, he will never know.:(
Not yet ... but to be honest the wee STA25 does a remarkably good job with its 35 watts. I have been in contact with Will and have even booked a weekend in (hopefully by that time) sunny North Cornwall to pick it up.
So how do you go about 'toning down your system, dynamically', Brian? :)
:popcorn::popcorn:
Fancy having a go at this, mate?
Marco.
I bet they are better than Marcos. Much, much, much better;):lol: (spot the wind up). Still, til Marco gets the balls to go see you... and get his heart broken, he will never know.:(
Ha - aye, I'm defo the shy, easily heartbroken type! :D:D
Marco.
Ha - aye, I'm defo the shy, easily heartbroken type! :D:D
Marco.
And the sweetest with it:D:);)
Not yet ... but to be honest the wee STA25 does a remarkably good job with its 35 watts. I have been in contact with Will and have even booked a weekend in (hopefully by that time) sunny North Cornwall to pick it up.
The 50 Watts of my Bill Beard defo kept them awake.
Even Kedar liked your Tannoys. That's high praise. He kept saying Tannoys were crap before his visit. Now he knows not all are;)
jandl100
25-04-2018, 20:43
Chalk & Cheese, what Marco's Tannoys and Tom's do, I think. Very different, imo.
I've heard the same "model" Tannoy as Tom has round at Paul RFC's place and heard Marco's wee beasties at Scallyford.
No way can Tom's pump da bass out like Marco's.
And dare I say that Tom's can do things with delicacy that Marco isn't interested in?
I very much doubt either would swap for the other's.
I reckon Tom's Tannoys are really good with plinky plonky stuff he likes to listen to, and very capable of presenting not so great recordings in a favourable manner.
That makes them good with classical I think, and as I said to Tom, so many classical recordings are sonically compromised, with the variation in SQ being wider than any other genre.
Unfortunately I rate my speakers as pretty dreadful with classical for use with average to poor recordings. They just tell it like it is as far as they are concerned. And it isn't flattering. For that reason if I was into classical I wouldn't touch them with a barge poll.
Chalk & Cheese, what Marco's Tannoys and Tom's do, I think. Very different, imo.
I've heard the same "model" Tannoy as Tom has round at Paul RFC's place and heard Marco's wee beasties at Scallyford.
No way can Tom's pump da bass out like Marco's.
And dare I say that Tom's can do things with delicacy that Marco isn't interested in?
I very much doubt either would swap for the other's.
That's most likely how things would pan out, Jerry: both speakers would have their respective strengths and weaknesses :)
The reality could well be that Tom's do things with delicacy that mine don't do, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't want them to..... I would. Or for that matter that Tom wouldn't want his to do bass like mine (if either were possible). That's the point.
I can't speak for Tom, but the sheer diversity of my musical tastes (as other than 'yee-hah' country music, there is literally NOTHING I won't listen to), demands that my system (and speakers) must 'do justice to delicacy' as well as excelling at slam - and to my ears, and those of others who've heard them, they do.
Marco.
What's the cone size on yours, Marco?
15", mate.
Marco.
Respect, bro. Should shift some air - more than Tom's - and go lower. As I think Jerry was saying.
Churz... I don't really want this turning into a game of loudspeaker 'top trumps', though, as that's not what it's about.
Marco.
montesquieu
25-04-2018, 21:47
Respect, bro. Should shift some air - more than Tom's - and go lower. As I think Jerry was saying.
Not necessarily lower .. my favourite Tannoy drivers are the 12in HPDs and 15in Golds .... the 12in HPDs need more grunt but in terms of specs go just as low as the 15in Golds ... in 12in Golds are very sweet but don't go as low as the 12in HPDs (not an issue in some rooms and most of the cabs they came in won't allow it anyway), while the ribbed cone on the 15in HPDs not only needs more power but isn't capable of the subtlety of the 15in Gold (or 12in HPD), and they don't really go any lower than either even in a big box.
All in all the 12in HPD is my preferred compromise between it and the 15in Gold (which I owned for about 5-6 years in multiple cabs including Lancasters, GRF rectangular horns, Lockwoods and Autographs) as while it doesn't shift as much air, it goes just as low (in the right cab) and is capable of slightly more more subtlety - perfect for my sort of music. The 15in Gold does give you a bit more of that giant room filling Tannoy sound but not quite the nuance I think mainly because it's pushed very high at the crossover point (that's a big cone to be doing 1khz - a couple of octaves above middle C) so slightly less clarity for the classical stuff - but potentially not so much of an issue depending on your musical choices.
In short Jerry's observations are probably spot on. I can see why the 15in Gold would be preferred by some, and I'm very happy with the 12in HPD.
Having said all that when Kedar came round I stuck a Sheffield Labs Wagner recording on (Siegfried Funeral Music) which has the most dynamic range I've ever heard on an LP, and we really rocked the place. Not something I do that often tbh.
For me the critical thing about Tannoys is to get the crossover right. When you describe mine as a one-off I think that's because so few people have really gone to town on the crossover - Paul did a fantastic job on mine indeed I would say it's the biggest single upgrade I've ever made to my system.
But really it is though. I don't mean that in a competitive "my speakers are better than yours" sense, but in a "which parameters do I value the most, given I can't have everything, even if I strive to".
But then again subjective assessments of ability can't really be put down on top trumps fact cards. Only objective technical measurements can, and only if done by one central technical body, as the results would vary when testing the same speakers otherwise.
Whatever. Bass and bass extension is not everyone's priority. It is high on mine, though.
Not necessarily
The 12 inch drivers must be capable of more excursion than the 15 inch ones to manage similar bass response given the same (reasonable) cab size. At least that would be my understanding.
For me the critical thing about Tannoys is to get the crossover right. When you describe mine as a one-off I think that's because so few people have really gone to town on the crossover...
Absolutely. I simply couldn't have lived with mine with their stock crossovers, as they sounded rather tubby and old-fashioned - not my thing at all. However, underneath all that, I could hear their potential, which thankfully the crossovers I went to town on cured and subsequently released!:)
I understand where you're coming from with MGs and HPDs, but I've yet to hear a pair of HPDs that sound as naturally open and 'effortless' as the equivalent sized MGs, for example when comparing my Lockwoods with, say, a pair of current Canterburys. The Lockwoods just sound sweeter, 'free-er' (less congested), and also strangely 'bigger', too!
And the same thing has happened any time I've assessed that situation, by carrying out similar comparisons. Therefore, generally, I prefer the sound of MGs, especially with valves, but your HPDs may change my opinion :cool:
Marco.
montesquieu
25-04-2018, 22:40
The 12 inch drivers must be capable of more excursion than the 15 inch ones to manage similar bass response given the same (reasonable) cab size. At least that would be my understanding.
There are quite a few changes to the HPDs (that require higher power to drive them). The suspension was completely redesigned (replacing the old fabric binding with rubber which does indeed have more excursion) and the cone reinforced by cardboard folds that aren't on the Monitor Gold.
Whatever. Bass and bass extension is not everyone's priority. It is high on mine, though.
And mine, but not as much as SCALE, together with the ability to portray that effect naturally and effortlessly with music, which for me only the biggest drivers can achieve in suitable sized cabinets, and when driven by an appropriate amp. Wide baffles, in my experience, also help in that respect.
A single, fat 15-incher slapped onto the front of a speaker, in a suitably wide baffle, for me, always sounds 'bigger', and capable of greater scale, than any amount (within reason) of smaller drivers positioned elsewhere on a much narrower cabinet. The best speakers for me, are generally always those that look the most visually imposing!
Anything designed with WAF in mind, is quite simply fatally compromised in comparison - and will sound it!
I hate listening to speakers that are obviously trying hard to 'impress', or that are clearly capable of producing deep bass (as in going very low, frequency-wise) but don't do the scale/slam thing properly. It's the latter, with the right music, that puts a big grin on my chops, not necessarily the former.
Let's face it, so much music benefits from being reproduced with proper scale and authority, although not necessarily very low bass (unless one is listening to organ music), so that it has the correct amount of weight and texture, and sounds believable and real, as opposed to a poor and rather 'weedy' facsimile of such.
Therefore, in my view, the ability of a system (and speakers) to reproduce genuine scale, in an effortless way, is one of the things most important to accurate music reproduction.
Marco.
walpurgis
25-04-2018, 22:54
There were at least three variants of 12" Monitor Gold. One of which had identical foam (Tannoplas) cone surrounds to the 12" HPD.
Also, rubber roll surrounds were used at one time, as were pleated doped surrounds, which were not fabric (as in cloth), but an integrated part of the paper cone material.
The difference in sensitivity between the Gold and HPD 12" drivers is small, as the 'Girdacoustic' paper ribs on the rear of the HPD cone do not weigh much.
montesquieu
25-04-2018, 23:05
Absolutely. I simply couldn't have lived with mine with their stock crossovers, as they sounded rather tubby and old-fashioned - not my thing at all. However, underneath all that, I could hear their potential, which thankfully the crossovers I went to town on cured and subsequently released!:)
I understand where you're coming from with MGs and HPDs, but I've yet to hear a pair of HPDs that sound as naturally open and 'effortless' as the equivalent sized MGs, for example when comparing my Lockwoods with, say, a pair of current Canterburys. The Lockwoods just sound sweeter, and also strangely 'bigger', too!
And the same thing has happened any time I've assessed that situation, by carrying out a similar comparison. Therefore, generally, I prefer the sound of MGs, especially with valves, but your HPDs may change my opinion :cool:
Marco.
It's a very tough call they both have relative strengths and weaknesses ('relative' being the important word). I have no criticisms at all of the 15in MGs in fact I think they are fantastic. You are right about the effortlessness .. it's probably a trade-off between that effortlessness (which the 12in HPDs have, but not to the same extent), and a smidgeon more clarity.
Oh and I totally agree with you on the scale thing. That's what these are all about.
Yeah Tom, you're probably right.
Would it be correct to say that 15" MGs have lighter, or perhaps 'faster reacting' cones, than those used on 15" HPDs (the latter being stiffer, and possibly also a little heavier, in order to handle more power)? It's something I've always wondered, and if so, that could have a bearing on matters.
The other thing that struck me recently (at Cooky, Frank's, place when I visited him with Macca) was the significant difference in the size of magnets used on 15" HPDs, compared with their MG counterparts, as those of the latter are considerably bigger, making the difference in the overall weight between the drivers rather obvious.
Might that also be influencing matters too, the bigger magnets on the MGs, that is, not the heavier overall weight of the drivers themselves?
Marco.
jandl100
26-04-2018, 06:51
In short Jerry's observations are probably spot on..
Of course! :D
You just have to listen to them. They are voiced and perform quite differently. Different speakers - different cones, cabs and xovers; nothing in common at all! - and they sound it. No surprise, really.
Am I the only one here who has heard both Tom's and Marco's modded Tannoys?
Yes, I think so, although Macca has heard my Tannoys and Paul's (RFC), so that's about the closest.
Thing is, you haven't heard mine in my system at home, which is a different kettle of fish, than at Scalford. They worked well there, but were probably only delivering 75% or so of their true potential, and what they're capable of here, where they sound rather more 'intimate'.
The much smaller room [listening near-field] and the mains would be the biggest factors.
Marco.
jandl100
26-04-2018, 07:01
It's Paul RFC's I have heard, too, not Tom's. But Paul told me they were near identical spec and build. He gave his the own the nod, of course! :)
Yes, I'd love to hear your system, Marco. Maybe I can get myself to Wrexham sometime?
You'd be very welcome. It's not that far, as I've done the opposite journey to yours :)
Marco.
The narrow baffle is to reduce reflections and so improve stereo imaging. That's why even really expensive speakers, where they could have used big drivers just as easily, use an array of small ones. Or the cabinet tapers from wide at the bottom where the big driver is, up to narrow at the top where the mid and tweeter are. It isn't anything to do with fashion or lifestyle considerations.
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 14:25
Funny how big Tannoys have wide baffles, yet have some of the best imaging you could ask for. :)
Diffraction off the baffle is a known problem, it's why KEF and B&W put their tweeters in little pods on some models.
I think the problem is that there are so many problems with any design of speaker that just addressing one in isolation won't really accomplish anything except to give the marketing department something to talk about in the brochure, or maybe give a unique/different look to the speaker.
Tannoys are a dual concentric so you'd expect them to image better because of that. But worth noting that a lot of Tannoys and other dual concentrics like KEF come in narrow cabs too. In theory they should image better than those in the wide cabs.
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 14:51
there are so many problems with any design of speaker that just addressing one in isolation won't really accomplish anything except to give the marketing department something to talk about in the brochure, or maybe give a unique/different look to the speaker
Quite likely. Loads of hype and bollocks based around theories.
The narrow baffle is to reduce reflections and so improve stereo imaging. That's why even really expensive speakers, where they could have used big drivers just as easily, use an array of small ones. Or the cabinet tapers from wide at the bottom where the big driver is, up to narrow at the top where the mid and tweeter are. It isn't anything to do with fashion or lifestyle considerations.
Dunno about that... Maybe not directly, but can you imagine how easy it would be to sell large, wide-baffled speakers these days to your average WAF-slave hi-fi enthusiast?;)
Manufacturers make those claims about reflections and stereo imaging, and it might partly be true, but the overriding reason for that style of speaker being produced is to make the design more 'room friendly'.
The type of speakers Andrew's referring to have a totally different sonic presentation to any tall, slim floor-stander, and one of the main reasons for that is baffle width. Therefore I stand by what I wrote earlier, and which you'll also discover when you get your Tannoys sorted!:exactly:
Marco.
jandl100
26-04-2018, 15:32
If wide baffles are bad, then why don't Tannoys sound crap? :scratch:
Oh, hang on, wait a minute! ... :lol:
:sorry: ;)
The reason I don't think that it is a WAF thing is threefold
1) the WAF solution is not to have any speakers or hi-fi on display at all. It's no good saying 'But darling, these speakers have very narrow baffles.' She doesn't want speakers in her living room, end of.
For the WAF theory to be true the entire narrow baffle design would have to be aimed at that tiny sub-section of people who have a wife who will object to wide speakers but not to narrow ones. Whilst there must be some I would suggest it is hardly a demographic at all.
2) There is plenty of research, mostly available on line, that looks closely into the effect the cabinet design has on the sound waves propagating from it. It is generally concluded that, all else being equal, narrow baffles image better than wide baffles.
3) You can buy speakers that are absolute monsters and cost a fortune but still use a narrow baffle design. These speakers are clearly way beyond any WAF - pandering yet still use a narrow baffle. Why would they do that?
As for Tannoys, the baffle needs to be that wide to accommodate a 15 inch driver, the fixings and the thickness of the side walls. I would be interested to see if anyone can produce any evidence that the baffle was deliberately made wide in order to improve sound quality. I'll bet there is none because I reckon they never even considered it. But happy to be proven wrong.
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 15:49
narrow baffles image better than wide baffles
That goes against logic really. Surely the wider a baffle, the less diffraction? I mean, take it to extremes, have a baffle ten feet wide. The edges are unlikely to cause problems.
Somebody once said that the ultimate speaker would be a point source with a baffle of infinite size. (think there was a bit more to it though)
jandl100
26-04-2018, 15:52
The edges cause diffraction, so act as an independent source of sound.
The wider they are apart the more diffuse and spread out the imaging will be.
The somebody who wanted infinitely wide baffles wanted to get away from diffraction effects altogether.
Unachievable, of course.
Except without any baffles.
That goes against logic really. Surely the wider a baffle, the less diffraction? I mean, take it to extremes, have a baffle ten feet wide. The edges are unlikely to cause problems.
)
Which is why the pros soffit-mount. But otherwise a wide baffle is sub-optimal for imaging, even if it may confer benefits elsewhere.
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 15:57
The edges cause diffraction, so act as an independent source of sound
Edges generate sound?:scratch: Hmm, get rid of the drivers and rely on the edges.
jandl100
26-04-2018, 15:57
Yes.
Look up diffraction, Geoff. :doh:
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 16:00
Yes.
Look up diffraction, Geoff. :doh:
I'm well aware of edge diffraction. But I like posing challenging points of view. ;)
jandl100
26-04-2018, 16:01
Here you go ...
http://images.audiojudgement.com/2016/02/diffraction.jpg
The reason I don't think that it is a WAF thing is threefold
1) the WAF solution is not to have any speakers or hi-fi on display at all. It's no good saying 'But darling, these speakers have very narrow baffles.' She doesn't want speakers in her living room, end of.
For the WAF theory to be true the entire narrow baffle design would have to be aimed at that tiny sub-section of people who have a wife who will object to wide speakers but not to narrow ones. Whilst there must be some I would suggest it is hardly a demographic at all.
2) There is plenty of research, mostly available on line, that looks closely into the effect the cabinet design has on the sound waves propagating from it. It is generally concluded that, all else being equal, narrow baffles image better than wide baffles.
3) You can buy speakers that are absolute monsters and cost a fortune but still use a narrow baffle design. These speakers are clearly way beyond any WAF - pandering yet still use a narrow baffle. Why would they do that?
As for Tannoys, the baffle needs to be that wide to accommodate a 15 inch driver, the fixings and the thickness of the side walls. I would be interested to see if anyone can produce any evidence that the baffle was deliberately made wide in order to improve sound quality. I'll bet there is none because I reckon they never even considered it. But happy to be proven wrong.
No worries and noted. However, two things:
In terms of the "WAF solution", I'm referring to the types of customers decent hi-fi dealers around the country have (such as hi-fi dave), and also abroad, with female partners who are happy to have proper speakers in the lounge, but nothing too obtrusive, and so tall, slim floorstanders of some description, often fit the bill.
And I'd imagine if you totalled up those customers, worldwide, wherever there are such hi-fi dealerships, it'd amount to a decent-sized demographic - and trust me, manufacturers know that, and so cater for the demand :)
Secondly, I won't dispute the imaging thing, but as Geoff points out, it certainly doesn't hold back big Tannoy DCs in that respect, as they image beautifully. However, I'm more of a scale/slam kinda guy, than an imaging freak, and I'm still convinced that baffle width has a key part to play in that, as well as obviously driver size.
You should listen to a pair of these Hecos, in comparison with a quality slim floorstander, of overall similar dimensions, but with an array of smaller drivers, and you might 'get' where I'm coming from with wide baffles and one big (or bigger than normal) driver at the front, instead of multiple arrays of smaller drivers:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq90/924/fKtWUw.jpg
The slam and scale those are capable of is much superior to the latter, although I don't know about imaging! Personally, I'd love to hear these babies:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/w34yOg.png
Do you think that Heco have bucked the popular 'slim' floorstanding trend for no good reason? I think not.
Nice big, fat and wide... You can't beat it!;)
Marco.
How do you distinguish between the big driver providing the slam and the wide baffle providing the slam? All speakers with big drivers have wide baffles out of necessity, you can't fit a fifteen on a narrow baffle.
So we can never listen to a big driver on a narrow baffle to test if it still has as much slam. We could put a small driver on a wide baffle and see if it slams more than it does on a narrow one, I suppose. I guess somewhere that the research has been done, pretty much everything about speakers has been researched and tested to infinity. So I'm not saying that a wide baffle does not add to the slam, I simply don't know and I'm wary of jumping to conclusions about it without doing the required reading.
jandl100
26-04-2018, 17:07
http://www.gr-research.com/images/av4gray3.jpg
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 17:08
What are those Jerry?
jandl100
26-04-2018, 17:11
What are those Jerry?
I'm not sure!
I was just looking for a good pic of a large side mounted woofer to show that you could have your cake and eat it. :)
Audio Physik do similar speakers.
And my MBLs have an 8 incher mounted on either side of the cab.
jandl100
26-04-2018, 17:13
Ah - here you go
http://gr-research.com/av-4.aspx
How do you distinguish between the big driver providing the slam and the wide baffle providing the slam? All speakers with big drivers have wide baffles out of necessity, you can't fit a fifteen on a narrow baffle.
So we can never listen to a big driver on a narrow baffle to test if it still has as much slam. We could put a small driver on a wide baffle and see if it slams more than it does on a narrow one, I suppose. I guess somewhere that the research has been done, pretty much everything about speakers has been researched and tested to infinity. So I'm not saying that a wide baffle does not add to the slam, I simply don't know and I'm wary of jumping to conclusions about it without doing the required reading.
Never mind reading, it's LISTENING to them that matters most...!;)
I understand where you're coming from. However, I'm just talking about as an overall 'package' - and in that respect, in terms of large floorstanding speakers, I'd always take a good wide, single bass-driver big 'un, over a good slim, multiple smaller bass-driver big 'un :)
Marco.
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 17:19
I was just looking for a good pic of a large side mounted woofer to show that you could have your cake and eat it. :)
I have an aversion to speakers that have side or rear drivers or ports. To me it's just not right.
jandl100
26-04-2018, 17:20
I have an aversion to speakers that have side or rear drivers or ports. To me it's just not right.
I don't.
My speakers have 4 side firers a piece and a rear port. :eyebrows:
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 17:23
I don't.
My speakers have 4 side firers a piece and a rear port. :eyebrows:
Yes, but your speakers are not 'normal'! :D
http://www.gr-research.com/images/av4gray3.jpg
Now you see, that's *exactly* the type of slim-baffled large floorstanding speaker I don't like, with side-firing bass drivers, which simply don't produce the same slam and scale, as the likes of the smaller Hecos above, with one front-mounted single 12-inch woofer per speaker, although they certainly have plenty of deep bass.
However, as I've said before, deep bass and palpable scale/slam are quite different things - and in my experience with floorstanding speaker designs, one front-mounted, say, 12-inch woofer, will excel at the scale/slam thing more than 2 x, say, 8-inch side-firing woofers.
Theoretically, you might have a total cone area of 16" inches, but in practice, the one front-mounted 12-inch woofer will still produce more scale/slam (given that the internal volume of the speakers in question is the same or similar)! That's what my experience tells me anyway :cool:
Marco.
Never mind reading, it's LISTENING to them that matters most...!;)
I understand where you're coming from. However, I'm just talking about as an overall 'package' - and in that respect, in terms of large floorstanding speakers, I'd always take a good wide, single bass-driver big 'un, over a good slim, multiple smaller bass-driver big 'un :)
Marco.
Listening only tells you what's going on, to find out why it's going on you need to do research. Or read someone else's research. Subjectivism is all well and good until you start speculating about why you are hearing what you are hearing. Then without doing the due diligence you can jump to all sorts of incorrect conclusions.
As to your second para I'm in complete agreement.
jandl100
26-04-2018, 17:32
Appropriately driven (e.g. with my old Krell KAV250a amp) my 2 sidefiring 8 inchers per speaker even impressed Justin with the bass slam they could deliver. :eek: Justin is not easily impressed in that regard. ;)
It's all in the implementation, imo, handy rules of thumb don't always apply.
Had a set of big missions with side firing woofers. Never hot on with them but my mate got them and loves them. Horses for courses
Listening only tells you what's going on, to find out why it's going on you need to do research.
Yesh, but I don't really care about the whys and wherefores - simply the results of what I hear! :ner:;)
You're right, Martin, but as you know, with hi-fi, I go more on my gut feelings/instincts (which rarely let me down) than on technicalities, and my gut feeling in this instance, is indicating that there's very likely something in what I'm saying. However, if that's true, it would be interesting to see some objective proof that confirms it:cool:
Marco.
Yesh, but I don't really care about the whys and wherefores - simply the results of what I hear! :ner:;)
.
But nevertheless you are speculating as to why you hear it so you must have some interest. :D
My gut instinct agrees with yours, though. Maybe Frank Cooky knows the score on this?
Appropriately driven (e.g. with my old Krell KAV250a amp) my 2 sidefiring 8 inchers per speaker even impressed Justin with the bass slam they could deliver. :eek: Justin is not easily impressed in that regard. ;)
It's all in the implementation, imo, handy rules of thumb don't always apply.
As you know, I enjoyed your MBLs, and to my ears they didn't lack slam, but your MBLs are less conventional and not the type of floorstanding designs I'm criticising. It's speakers such as the Audio Physics you posted a picture of earlier.
For me, speakers like that are fundamentally flawed, and cause havoc with rooms (in terms of how the bass they produce 'excites' them).
Marco.
But nevertheless you are speculating as to why you hear it so you must have some interest. :D
My gut instinct agrees with yours, though. Maybe Frank Cooky knows the score on this?
Lol - indeed. Btw, I'm happy to speculate in public about anything to do with hi-fi - call it 'thinking out loud', but it doesn't mean I'm right. Indeed, I'm quite happy to be proved otherwise, as it's all about learning stuff!:)
Marco.
Now you see, that's *exactly* the type of slim-baffled large floorstanding speaker I don't like, with side-firing bass drivers, which simply don't produce the same slam and scale, as the likes of the smaller Hecos above, with one front-mounted single 12-inch woofer per speaker, although they certainly have plenty of deep bass.
However, as I've said before, deep bass and palpable scale/slam are quite different things - and in my experience with floorstanding speaker designs, one front-mounted, say, 12-inch woofer, will excel at the scale/slam thing more than 2 x, say, 8-inch side-firing woofers.
Theoretically, you might have a total cone area of 16" inches, but in practice, the one front-mounted 12-inch woofer will still produce more scale/slam (given that the internal volume of the speakers in question is the same or similar)! That's what my experience tells me anyway :cool:
Marco.
Have you ever heard KEF Blades. They may make you think differently about what side firing speaker systems can do.:)
Spectral Morn
26-04-2018, 18:40
Have you ever heard KEF Blades. They may make you think differently about what side firing speaker systems can do.:)
My Anthony Gallo Reference 3.1 and 3.5 speakers also have a side firing bass driver. I think the problem for me with conventional cabinet designs is I can hear the cabinet and wide baffle speakers, those I have heard, don't image as well as narrow baffle speakers.
Have you ever heard KEF Blades. They may make you think differently about what side firing speaker systems can do.:)
Hi Jim,
No I haven't. I'm aware of them, but haven't heard them. I'd certainly listen to the Blades with an open mind, but I doubt they'd be my thing. You never know, though!
Marco.
sq225917
26-04-2018, 19:26
The edges cause diffraction, so act as an independent source of sound.
The wider they are apart the more diffuse and spread out the imaging will be.
The somebody who wanted infinitely wide baffles wanted to get away from diffraction effects altogether.
Unachievable, of course.
Except without any baffles.
The wider apart they are the lower the frequency diffraction effects act at as well. Go low enough and bass is omni directional anyway. Its not as simple as wider equals worse imaging, far from it.
I think the problem for me with conventional cabinet designs is I can hear the cabinet and wide baffle speakers, those I have heard, don't image as well as narrow baffle speakers.
Sure, and at the end of the day all speakers are a compromise. And although I care about it to a degree and consider it as important, I'm just not a big imaging/soundstaging freak. I'm more a rhythm/boogie/scale/slam/fun-factor kinda guy, so would always choose speakers that majored on that, as opposed to the former.
However, in terms of my own speakers, they might have big cabinets with wide baffles, but the very nature of the Tannoy DC design ensures that imaging is very good, whereas with other large loudspeaker drive units, in similar cabinets, it might not be.
The other thing to consider too, if you scroll back to the pics of the Hecos I posted earlier, and examine in particular the larger of the two models, you'll see that they may be rather wide, but they're not very deep, and for good reason...
So there's not as much cabinet to 'hear' overall, with such designs, as you might think - and what's there will certainly be inert;)
Marco.
montesquieu
26-04-2018, 20:13
Gosh this has all moved on a bit since I last logged in.
On the diffraction issue ... I recall once I was considering mounting my then 15in Monitor Golds from the back - utilising what I thought was the foam round the edge of the driver to 'seal' the joint (because it looks like a gasket), then reading that it was actually there to assist with diffraction effects that would otherwise be an issue with the usual large baffles they are put in.
Unfortunately a 5min google hasn't turned up the link. But it seems plausible. Certainly for all the size of the baffles on mine, they image superbly. So there's clearly more to imaging than cat coffin chic!
Pigmy Pony
26-04-2018, 20:26
Wouldn't the loudspeaker designs that have small(ish drivers on a tall narrow front, and large woofers on the sides not potentially provide all the required qualities? i.e. narrow front for less edge dispersion (so better imaging) combined with bass units in a wide baffle for deep bass and slam?
In theory this design should have all the qualities that everyone posting on this thread seems to want.
If I'm being a bit naïve be kind to me, I don't normally post on anything technical, due to a paucity of required grey matter :)
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 20:28
On the diffraction issue ... I recall once I was considering mounting my then 15in Monitor Golds from the back - utilising what I thought was the foam round the edge of the driver to 'seal' the joint (because it looks like a gasket), then reading that it was actually there to assist with diffraction effects that would otherwise be an issue with the usual large baffles they are put in
Dunno where you saw that Tom. The foam strips around the cone are gaskets. The Golds were back mounted in their manufacturer's cabinets and the foam sealed them in. The foam became redundant with the front mounted HPD's, but was retained as the alloy channel that holds the strips is what held the cone surrounds in place. No doubt the foam was kept to hide the screw heads.
probably will help with diffraction tho, even if it wasnt made for purpose
montesquieu
26-04-2018, 20:33
Dunno where you saw that Tom. The foam strips around the cone are gaskets. The Golds were back mounted in their manufacturer's cabinets and the foam sealed them in. The foam became redundant with the front mounted HPD's, but was retained as the alloy channel that holds the strips is what held the cone surrounds in place. No doubt the foam was kept to hide the screw heads.
No I've definitely seen this discussed. And I don't believe it was about the screw heads on the HPD.
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 20:34
Wouldn't the loudspeaker designs that have small(ish drivers on a tall narrow front, and large woofers on the sides not potentially provide all the required qualities? i.e. narrow front for less edge dispersion (so better imaging) combined with bass units in a wide baffle for deep bass and slam?
In theory this design should have all the qualities that everyone posting on this thread seems to want.
If I'm being a bit naïve be kind to me, I don't normally post on anything technical, due to a paucity of required grey matter :)
There's something about having big drivers facing you. Try standing in front of some large JBL's pumping out some slamming bass, then turn them round to face backwards and try again, somehow the gut punching impact will not be there!! :D
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 20:38
No I've definitely seen this discussed. And I don't believe it was about the screw heads on the HPD.
The alloy channels and foam strips on the HPD's are identical to those on the Golds. And the foam definitely covers the screws in both. Of course the foam may have been retained so that Gold users could 'upgrade' their cabinets to HPD's. This may have been desirable for the professional Tannoy market. Those using Lockwood cabinets and others. Tannoy were selling a lot of drivers for studio use and the like back then.
Pigmy Pony
26-04-2018, 21:00
There's something about having big drivers facing you. Try standing in front of some large JBL's pumping out some slamming bass, then turn them round to face backwards and try again, somehow the gut punching impact will not be there!! :D
Of course Geoff, I'd forgotten about that, and I know what you mean, from times when I've been stood in front of a stack at a gig. When you step out of their 'firing line' that 'slam' is greatly reduced.
I seem to have heard positive mentions of JBL's a few times lately, and I remember the credits for 'The Tube' in the 80's used to include Entec/JBL, which at the time I imagined would sound pretty cool. Never heard any, but hope to one day.
walpurgis
26-04-2018, 21:16
I'd say, size for size Tannoys and JBL's have similar 'wallop'. Being in front of BIG Altecs being given some wellie is an impressive experience too!
Hi Jim,
No I haven't. I'm aware of them, but haven't heard them. I'd certainly listen to the Blades with an open mind, but I doubt they'd be my thing. You never know, though!
Marco.
I must admit Marco they certainly don't look conventional and give you no idea what they are going to sound like when you are presented with a small point source speaker on the front. I have spent many many hours in front of them and they are simply awesome but they should be for £25,000!:eek:
Lol... Thing is, a) I wouldn't dream of spending that amount of money on pair of speakers (save perhaps some vintage JBL Hartsfields), b) I'm not a fan of how most modern speakers are voiced, and c) I hate how they look!
Now, that's not to say, sonically, that the Blades could be the exception to that rule, and I'd happily say so if that were the case after I'd heard them, but I wouldn't hold your breath, as for me, they don't tick any of the right boxes.
Marco.
I might spend £25k (or perhaps more) on importing these babies from Kenrick Sound in Japan, if we ever move to a bigger house. Check out the video, from delivering to unpacking, to listening them. It's rather enlightening:
jRFMPlrti_I
When you listen to speakers like that in real life, or those of a similar ilk, through a system that does them justice, and how they reproduce music, it hits you right between the eyes (or rather ears) just what's wrong with the vast majority of today's designs.
Marco.
Lol... Thing is, a) I wouldn't dream of spending that amount of money on pair of speakers (save perhaps some vintage JBL Hartsfields), b) I'm not a fan of how most modern speakers are voiced, and c) I hate how they look!
Now, that's not to say, sonically, that the Blades could be the exception to that rule, and I'd happily say so if that were the case after I'd heard them, but I wouldn't hold your breath, as for me, they don't tick any of the right boxes.
Marco.
I am with you on looks but sound is fabulous. I would not be able to buy a pair unless I sold my car and a kidney!:)
in that pic they look to be open baffle
I am with you on looks but sound is fabulous
Well for you yes, but the jury's out on that for me, until (or if) I hear them.
I think for you to really 'get' where I'm coming from, you'll have to visit and hear my Lockwoods, which are voiced similarly to the Hartsfields, and other top quality speakers from the 50s and 60s.
They have a rather addictive way of making music (and richness of tone), all of their own, which no modern loudspeakers, despite what they're no doubt good, or even better at, than the best vintage varieties, can replicate.
Did you watch the video of the Hartsfields?
Marco.
Marco, I suggested the earlier L300 and pro derivatives and blue-fronted 1980's descendants to you ages ago. They won't look as 'different' or as 'exclusive' as Hartfields (loads on the net as to the correct driver configuration (specific units to give best performance) to use for best results), but won't cost so much...
Anyway, it's high time those old wardrobes of yours went to another owner - Tannoys are so common these days ;)
Hi Dave,
Marco, I suggested the earlier L300 and pro derivatives and blue-fronted 1980's descendants to you ages ago.
I can't recall the speakers you're referring to. Got a link?:)
Anyway, it's high time those old wardrobes of yours went to another owner - Tannoys are so common these days...
Ha - indeed. I'm also rather guilty of hanging onto stuff for too long, because I'm happy with it, and just listening to music. I should really try harder to be a 'proper' hi-fi enthusiast!;)
Marco.
walpurgis
27-04-2018, 12:43
I suppose the ideal would be infinitely wide baffles or infinitesimal baffles. Unfortunately, in the real world we're stuck with having to be somewhere in between.
Even a drive unit is a baffle. That'll leave a few baffled! ;)
kininigin
27-04-2018, 13:20
I have recently compared my set-up of my main speakers employing 6" drivers and 2 subs with 15" drivers, with my brothers 'dj' set up which use's 2 Peavey 12" drivers! Now quality aside ( my set up has far more finesse ) his system definitely had more slam and scale. When it came to outright bass slam and scale, mine easily came out on top. So i'm thinking that 'slam and scale' is more a mid-range thing as well as just outright bass! The hit of a snare drum for instance was more visceral on the Peavey speakers.
Then i thought, his system can go much louder than mine,so is the 'slam and scale' thing due to how loud a system can go as well??
walpurgis
27-04-2018, 13:26
i'm thinking that 'slam and scale' is more a mid-range thing as well as just outright bass! The hit of a snare drum for instance was more visceral on the Peavey speakers.
Then i thought, his system can go much louder than mine,so is the 'slam and scale' thing due to how loud a system can go as well??
Bang on. With both points!
montesquieu
27-04-2018, 16:44
Dunno where you saw that Tom. The foam strips around the cone are gaskets. The Golds were back mounted in their manufacturer's cabinets and the foam sealed them in. The foam became redundant with the front mounted HPD's, but was retained as the alloy channel that holds the strips is what held the cone surrounds in place. No doubt the foam was kept to hide the screw heads.
Finally had a chance to dig around a bit on this.
Tannoy themselves don't describe them as gaskets, the phrase they use is "....trim rings ... to smooth out the otherwise discontinuous contour to the HF wavefront" - in other words, they are there to deal with diffraction.
Page 14, Section 5 of the Tannoy Monitor Series service manual - this is a later series (NFM and DMT) but the design is common going all the way back http://warehousesound.com/r/tannoyMONITORmanual.pdf
Indeed if you look you can still see a version of these rings (without holes for screws) on the current Legacy series.
walpurgis
27-04-2018, 17:01
Tannoy themselves don't describe them as gaskets, the phrase they use is "....trim rings ... to smooth out the otherwise discontinuous contour to the HF wavefront" - in other words, they are there to deal with diffraction.
Later model do have 'trim rings'. They are largely cosmetic, dsepite the Tannoy blurb. My Tannoys have them. They are thin plastic rings.
The foam rings on older models were gaskets: http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/HPD_recone.html
montesquieu
27-04-2018, 17:05
Later model do have 'trim rings'. They are largely cosmetic, dsepite the Tannoy blurb. My Tannoys have them. They are thin plastic rings.
The foam rings on older models were gaskets: http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/HPD_recone.html
In this specific case just because a bloke on a thread calls them gaskets doesn't mean that they are. I was quoting what Tannoy say about them.
We all know from bitter experience that much of the info on Hans's site is suspect/unverified at best and plain wrong in many cases. One of the reasons people are skeptical about replacing their crossovers is because of a dodgy circuit on there which has misled people for a decade or more (and is still up there despite Hans being told it's wrong, repeatedly, years back). I fell victim to it myself. About the only thing you can really rely on are the pictures.
BTW I just checked with Paul Coupe of RFC and he agreed that they are diffraction rings not gaskets. You are welcome to check with him!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.