+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: "Big - Old - Legacy - Separates"

  1. #1
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Posts: 424

    Default "Big - Old - Legacy - Separates"

    So that some can get an idea of where I'm "coming from", here's an extract from a post on another forum, which banned me for being too outspoken and to quote the forum operator "being a slow learner".

    Marco, if you feel this is not ok then apologies in advance and delete what you think is not good for this forum or free speech. regards -JC.

    JCBRUM ....
    Let me get something out in the open straightaway.

    British designed HiFi led the world on the basis of re-producing a recording as closely as possible to the original live performance, and provide excellent technical equipment to do it. Particularly loudspeakers. The whole world demanded our products, on the back of excellent research done by the BBC and others.

    However things changed for the worse with the introduction of hype, smoke and mirrors, and dubious claims for "magic" components, simply designed to part gullible enthusiasts from vast quantities of their cash, and with little real merit in hifi terms.

    Companies which came to prominence in the 1980's and are now struggling to maintain interest, have ruined the reputation of British HiFi, with their silly and misleading sales techniques, and the equipment they make often sounds awful because it distorts the sound, and followers call it "musicality". They even typed out special sales scripts for their silly salesmen to learn, and re-gurgitate to the punters, complete with foot-tapping and head nodding actions. I am told some salesmen still use these techniques today at shows and other places.

    None of these firms is a patch on the excellence of Radford and Quad in their day. Although technology has now advanced hugely and is still advancing at a blistering pace. There is almost no area of hifi where something designed competently in the last 12 months, won't beat something 5 years old.

    However "HiFi" and recorded music go back a long way. Well over 100yrs, in fact records were on sale in 1895. I have played some old records on my kit and the songs are delightful.

    However back to hifi. Mostly it's about playing pre-recorded music, and unlike Linn said, it's principally about choosing good loudspeakers. You may take it for-granted that in this day and age you can provide a good signal to the amplifiers.

    So how do we decide which is a good LS, well some would say by listening to it. But that is not the best way because our perception and judgement is heavily influenced by all the junk we have been listening to so far. We are far too prejudiced, at least initially.

    Instead lets try and work to a specification and lets see where that leads.

    Many people think the bass response is crucial for various reasons. Well the truth is that there isn't much deep bass, in most live music. Consider the available instruments, the commonest of which is the "double bass". The lowest note of which is about 40Hz. The human voice goes down to about 80Hz even on "Ole Man River" stuff.

    There are only 4 instruments which can go lower:- the harp and the bottom 3 notes on a grand piano = 30Hz. A Church Organ = 20Hz. And an Octocontra Bass Clarinet = which goes much lower, but only two have ever been made in the whole world, and they're not portable or working at the moment.

    So by setting a lower requirement of say 60Hz flat and just a bit of fall off at 40Hz you aren't going to miss much most of the time, and there are ways to add what's necessary anyway.
    The sort of requirement is met today by a recently designed 6" or 7" drive unit in a good enclosure, BUT NOT BY OLDER DESIGNS, because the drive units just aren't up to it.

    Lets now look at the higher frequencies. A "soprano" can hit around 1kHz. No real instruments operate above 4kHz. And no-one over the age of 30 can hear anything above 10k anyway.

    You can see now why a 78rpm record from 1930 can sound really good, with a frequency range of 150Hz - 5kHz, if it is played correctly. (which is very very difficult to do)

    Accept it ! even if you include harmonics, an upper frequency response extending to 20kHz is adequate, and probably overkill. So we have to employ a tweeter to supplement our bass driver. In that respect a good tweeter, correctly designed and implemented will do all necessary.

    The critical bit is the crossover , so lets dump it and use separate amplifiers to drive the bass and the tweeter units. We can now use an up to the minute active filter/crossover using very sharp and steep separators to provide very clean signals to the amplifiers and drive units.

    As long as we provide a nice well designed cabinet, which helps the above specs rather than hinders we have a beautiful and comparitively small loudspeaker, which does everything required to play music perfectly. You just don't need big or old designs.

    Aahh, you say but what about the Octocontra bass clarinet enthusiasts amongst us ? Well the answer is easy, just add a sympathetically designed Sub-Woofer, specifically designed to operate 60Hz and lower, using the same active technology. I've tested it down to 10Hz and it works.

    So big loudspeaqkers are totally un-necessary and all you need is a perfect signal to feed them.

    If you listen to the recordings of the "Vienna New Years Day Concert" which are available for about 40 yrs and probably more, you may notice that in 1975 irrc the changed from analogue to digital recording, with considerable benefits. Today it's possible for us to listen to the exact same recording that the producer hears when he is making the recording. No analogue copies, it's the same digital file. So nowadays we can all possess the digital "masters" if that's what they want to release.

    Modern computer equipment can play that "digital master " perfectly without any faults at all ! and all we need is a dac that's up to the job and we have reached Audio HiFi Nirvana.

    You would think a competent and thoughtful loudspeaker designer would design an appropriate dac and put it in his Loudspeakers ready for our use together with a remote volume control wouldn't you ?
    <Discuss>

  2. #2
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Hi jc,

    I'll watch this one with interest. As long as you refrain from 'slagging off' PFM, and any of their members, moderators, or administrators, and stick to the hi-fi subject, I have no problem with it.

    Good luck and play nice! If I get a chance I'll contribute later

    Marco.
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


  3. #3
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Gloucestershire

    Posts: 252

    Default

    The acoustics in most solidly built sitting rooms (British for example) are such that they usually augment the low end, which is why most people settle for 6.5" two way speakers. "In room" they sound pretty well balanced, whereas larger ones often excite room resonances and sound boomy. However others definitely need extra bass and customers may opt for a Subwoofer or bigger speakers.

    The amount and type of bass in modern recordings varies enormously, much more than a few years ago and quite a few have loads of energy below 60 Hz, others simply extend the duration of notes above 60Hz to make them sound louder and lower. Therefore I'd agree in principal with JC, but point out that there are enough exceptions for a manufacturer to have to produce alternatives.

    I certainly agree that the bullshit of recent years has clouded issues and the true objectives of a hi fi system seem to have been forgotten. Instead vague and meaningless descriptions are used to describe the "experience". I'd even suggest that many posting on audio forums are actually unhappy with the sound they are getting but in denial about it. The fact is that there hasn't been worthwhile progress and prices have risen exponentially, which is the opposite of what's happening on the Pro Audio and normal consumer electronics side.

    How is it that the cost of equipping a record studio has dropped from over half a million fifteen or so years ago to about £15K for a far better sound now, that TVs cost a fraction of what they used to, but some hi fi has risen to absurd levels without any justification at all?

    It's not surprising that Cambridge Audio are making substantial inroads.

  4. #4
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Central England

    Posts: 2,932

    Default

    How is it that the cost of equipping a record studio has dropped from over half a million fifteen or so years ago to about £15K for a far better sound now,
    You and I inhabit different planets because much mainstream music is very poorly recorded these days given loudness wars and the general need for compression to make low res and compressed recordings in order that they sound nice through iPods and bedside table portable stereos.

    The cost may have come down but unfortunately so has the quality.

    Your product should do well in this mass ephemeral market but not with folks who actually do know a good sound when they hear one.

    I'm no Luddite as you've suggested elsewhere because computer audio, accompanied by smaller and more capacious RAM chips and bigger storage capacity hard drives, will bring us in the near future the kind of resolution for one single track that hitherto would have been afforded to a whole CD in terms of resolution, but only if the discerning market remains big enough to demand it. This compares to the utterly useless (in terms of resolution - 1/10th of Red Book CD) MP3 formats used with iPod Shuffles that are basically just 1990s technology in a cute and overly marketed package. An iPod of any description is only a bit better than a Sony Walkman from 1985 so please cut the bullshit.

    I compared directly an iPod with a decent CD player costing over 2k back in 2006. The iPod was boom 'n tizz, its timing all over the place, it sounded dynamically flat and was utterly uncommunicative in comparison. For you to even suggest that any ipod could even compete with a CD player costing £500 let alone one costing thousands to me is desperate marketing appealing to the gullible and ephemeral and not to the genuinely discerning. Such statements to this effect are utterly devoid of any sincerity, of that I feel certain.

    You can convenietly ignore, sidestep or 'forget' this particular concern of mine here and play the role of the NuLab politician if you like, but the fact remains that in pursuit of some desperate attempt at market dominance you may have forgotten any notion of real excellence in recorded music replay.

  5. #5
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: gone

    Posts: 11,519
    I'm gone.

    Default

    I think that an important issue here with a small-ish 2-way speaker is the amount of air that can be moved.

    My feeling is that there is no substitute to loudspeaker diaphragm area if you want to re-create the sound (dynamics, and sheer scale) of a large orchestra (100+ musicians belting it out) or a rock band in full blast.

    I really don't think that a little 2-way can do that. By choosing such a loudspeaker you are severely limiting the breadth of music that can be reproduced with a reasonable and believable facsimile of reality.
    .

  6. #6
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire

    Posts: 41

    Default

    Well said, Steve.

  7. #7
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Gloucestershire

    Posts: 252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Toy View Post
    You and I inhabit different planets because much mainstream music is very poorly recorded these days given loudness wars and the general need for compression to make low res and compressed recordings in order that they sound nice through iPods and bedside table portable stereos.

    The cost may have come down but unfortunately so has the quality.

    Your product should do well in this mass ephemeral market but not with folks who actually do know a good sound when they hear one.

    I'm no Luddite as you've suggested elsewhere because computer audio, accompanied by smaller and more capacious RAM chips and bigger storage capacity hard drives, will bring us in the near future the kind of resolution for one single track that hitherto would have been afforded to a whole CD in terms of resolution, but only if the discerning market remains big enough to demand it. This compares to the utterly useless (in terms of resolution - 1/10th of Red Book CD) MP3 formats used with iPod Shuffles that are basically just 1990s technology in a cute and overly marketed package. An iPod of any description is only a bit better than a Sony Walkman from 1985 so please cut the bullshit.

    I compared directly an iPod with a decent CD player costing over 2k back in 2006. The iPod was boom 'n tizz, its timing all over the place, it sounded dynamically flat and was utterly uncommunicative in comparison. For you to even suggest that any ipod could even compete with a CD player costing £500 let alone one costing thousands to me is desperate marketing appealing to the gullible and ephemeral and not to the genuinely discerning. Such statements to this effect are utterly devoid of any sincerity, of that I feel certain.

    You can convenietly ignore, sidestep or 'forget' this particular concern of mine here and play the role of the NuLab politician if you like, but the fact remains that in pursuit of some desperate attempt at market dominance you may have forgotten any notion of real excellence in recorded music replay.
    Steve

    The distortion on old studio kit is blindingly obvious, where the new stuff is amazingly clean and clear. The way recordings are produced varies enormously but you can still hear the improvements on most of them if you have equipment good enough to do it.

    If I read this and other Forums the overwhelming impression I get (and many who contact us comment similarly) is that people have systems that just aren't good enough to do the music justice and that they are blaming the music for what amounts to a poor choice of kit. They are not happy and some actually point out that their iPods sound better.

    If you understood the technology and what we've said, then you'd expect our speakers to be better and you'd hear that they were. But you don't and you have a bias which precludes rational judgement.

    I have to say that I don't like the way many records are produced for a variety of reasons, but even the worst are enjoyable and musical if it's your type of music. Therefore whatever you may think, it's our system that's musical and you and a few other detractors who are in trouble and "can't get involved in the music" on some recordings. You need better kit.

    And whether you like it or not, the audio electronics in numerous PMPs are just as good as in the best CD players so if you play lossless or equivalent, they'll sound just as good. Also, because MP3 encoding is benign, they'll sound really good as well, just slightly dull and closed in.

    However, all digital devices produce out of band hash which upsets some amplifiers. This is why certain companies squealed that "CD wasn't ready yet", it was and they weren't and if you have one from this category, you're wasting your time trying to make comparisons.

    One of our customers tried out tests on a load of shop assistants who wouldn't believe and iPod could be any good - basically they picked it out as better than a £1000 CD player several times on the trot in a blind test.

    As they used to say: "There's none so blind as them that will not see"

  8. #8
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Gloucestershire

    Posts: 252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jandl100 View Post
    I think that an important issue here with a small-ish 2-way speaker is the amount of air that can be moved.

    My feeling is that there is no substitute to loudspeaker diaphragm area if you want to re-create the sound (dynamics, and sheer scale) of a large orchestra (100+ musicians belting it out) or a rock band in full blast.

    I really don't think that a little 2-way can do that. By choosing such a loudspeaker you are severely limiting the breadth of music that can be reproduced with a reasonable and believable facsimile of reality.
    And I don't think you understand the limitations of big speakers. Bigger ones, apart there being much less demand, have severe crossover issues that sabotage most of their advantages. I'll explain it in great detail when I have more time, but in the meantime remember that ADM9's have a continuous 100 hour rating about 10dB higher than most 6.5" two way speakers and that there's a optional 40 kilo sub to keep up with them.

    They have a much better mid band that quite a few three way speakers, a better stereo image and NO PHASE ISSUES.

  9. #9
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Posts: 424

    Default

    It's very simple for any one to evaluate. Simply purchase an iPod shuffle for £39 from any Apple UK store, and plug it into the line in on your hifi instead of your cd player.

    Personally I doubt very much that you'll be disappointed with the sound, but the best result is by playing iTunes directly from the laptop/pc over a digital connection to a dac.

    good dacs don't have to cost more than £50-£150.

    The days of mega-bucks hifi are over.

  10. #10
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: gone

    Posts: 11,519
    I'm gone.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashley James View Post
    And I don't think you understand the limitations of big speakers.......
    Well let's put it this way .... the wallpaper- / anodyne-muzak that was oozing out of the AVI speakers at the recent Bristol Show was seriously wanting in terms of musical involvement or even musical interest, in my opinion.

    At the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ... and your goods are not even on my menu anymore.

    What a useless, self-serving thread. Good-Byeeee !!
    .

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •