Hey garretc,
I am sure that Dan Wright would be interested in your perspectives on hammers, nails, Scotts, and LaSalles.
Like Abe Lincoln said: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Best to you garretc,
Dave |
|
Stereophile and the other reputable publications do provide a bellwether of sorts for sorting audio gear, but there is an unfortunate side effect to their approach for those seeking guidance in sorting through the myriad of component offerings for purchase: If a component is auditioned for review and does not cut muster in a substantial way, they normally don't publish a review, nor do they tell their readership about this when it occurs, excepting possibly KR or Tom Gillette (Sam Tellig) when he was there. I understand the wisdom of this for a publication that depends almost entirely on advertising revenues for its existence, but it does limit the usefulness for those seeking to narrow the field for purchasing decisions.
So, IMO, one can assume that the components listed in Recommended Components are ones of substantial merit, but so few of the great components available are included due to the realities of limited time and resources for thorough review. Just how it is.
A second point is that it is impossible to keep non-current components in the mix of ratings. Those on a budget (including me) need to seriously consider the true audio bargains in the used market, but unless one has possession of (or keen knowledge/memory of) the years of reviews in past issues, the options are to limited to selecting from the lower categories of recent reviews that are within their budget.
Thirdly, by the very nature of being reviewers (I have reviewer friends), they cannot possibly find the optimal combinations of gear available for review that provide the best ultimate synergy. The reviewers have their vast experience and the network they share with other reviewers to guide them in pairings for review, but this is a far cry from what is necessary to find the best combinations necessary for long-term listening satisfaction.
Fourthly and lastly, there is little information about how to tweak the sound of components to provide their best performance. I include cabling, power enhancement products, room acoustical treatments, and vibration-reduction products in this category (for the purpose of this writing but I certainly consider these things as vital to achieving great sound in the home environment) . Tweaks are under such scrutiny/denial/criticism by so many and the time to identify the best ones for each component and application is simply impossible for reviewers. The best guide is to carefully examine the reviewers' list of "associated components" the accompanies the review for a vague idea of what that reviewer uses as a general setup. Many a component has suffered an inaccurate review due to ignorance about compatible cabling. Smart manufacturers get involved in the review of their equipment and personally see to it that this is addressed, but little is normally included in the review about this.
So where does this leave us? Competent advice from friends who are farther along the journey and share our preferences in sound characteristics, interaction with local audio societies, and with forums such as this to ask others who have more experience and then to sort the responses to pick the ones of most benefit and application to our circumstances and those with the most perceived credibility. The challenge here is to know the right questions to ask and how to interpret the responses, which unfortunately also takes some level of experience.
Perhaps most of all, to understand the notion of the hierarchy of "foundation components" (those that are primary to establishing a successful path to great sounding systems) before buying a component that will sent us off into a unnecessarily difficult and expensive journey to accommodate its idiosyncracies. Room =>Speakers=>AC quality=> Vibration isolation=>Source=> Preamp=>Amplifier=>cabling would be my recommended path FWIW.
Best to all,
Dave |
The source vs speaker debate is a valid one and there will likely never be consensus. The obvious fact is that both are important. However, I submit that while both are the major determinants of a system’s sound character and audio quality, a great source will work well with a wider variety of room acoustical treatment, preamplifiers, phono sections (providing it has adequate loading adjustment), amplifiers, and cabling than a speaker will, thus the speaker is the primary foundation component when building a complete audio system.
|
"Perhaps it's that I listen closer than 8 feet and the drivers can't sum properly in the near field or perhaps those slow crossovers don't knock the drivers down far enough out of the pass band for me."
Hi viridian. It's the former.
Best to you,
Dave
|
Hi viridian,
You are more than welcome to visit anytime you are in the Houston area. Seriously.
Never heard 1.5s, but I would imagine that the design was the best that could be done with the size and cost targets. I would never describe the sound of my 5i’s or the 2 2s I just sold to be slow. Not even close. These models were praised by almost everyone as having exceptional transient response and superior macro/micro dynamic performance
I am more of a fan of the Thiel 2 2, 3.5, 3.6, 5i era. Jim Thiel went to extremes to make the 1st-order crossovers work with these models IMO.
Indeed the 1st-order crossover is tough on drivers as the crossover allows them to see frequencies significantly outside of their stock design parameters. That’s why Jim took great care in driver selection and almost always used drivers modified to his specifications. Even the tweeters in the 2 2, 3.6, and 5i are custom made to Jim’s specs by Vifa to provide extraordinary excursion.
Jim published a white paper explaining it all very thoroughly. I can’t find a link to it on the web but I do have a hard copy. He used both a slanted & rounded baffle (the ones in my 5i’s are made of a heavy, inert marble/composite material) and carefully-engineered electrical circuits in the crossover to delay the signal exactly the right amount to ensure time and phase alignment between the drivers AT A SPECIFIED DISTANCE! of around 8 feet from baffle to listener. Thus, they do not work well in near-field environments. My 5i’s are 8 feet out from the wall to the front of the baffle, 8 feet apart from tweeter to tweeter, and 8 feet from my listening position, which is 8 feet from the wall behind me.
orpheus10, I can’t understand how the crossovers in your speakers could be modeled after the 1st-order Thiel crossover if they are 4th-order as you say?
Best to you both,
Dave |
Hi orpheus10,
From Stereophile June 1990 review:
"The CS5 crossover is itself also heroic. Constructed on a single hard-wired board, it incorporates 87 elements realized with 114 components. Only—only—55 elements are directly related to the first-order high- and low-pass filter functions, the rest being used to fine-tune the system's time response. The two midrange units, for example, are electrically "moved backward," by the equivalents of ¾" and 3/8" respectively, to bring their acoustic centers into the correct alignment. All coils apart from one are air-cored, and the capacitors are polypropylene and pure polystyrene types, the latter custom-made with tinfoil plates and copper lead-out wires. The internal wiring is a polypropylene-insulated solid-core type."
I have seen a picture somewhere of Jim Thiel holding this crossover. The visual impact of this crossover is breathtaking. Will keep looking.
I don't think that I (or likely anyone else alive) can design something like this.
Best to you O,
Dave
|
Good plan o. Enjoy.
Best to you,
Dave |
Hi o, My recent experiments with vibration control/dissipation have been a real eye opener. In retrospect, I realize that I have seriously neglected investing time and money into this important aspect of our hobby/obsession, feeling (in ignorance) that heavy, rigid, mass-filled equipment stands firmly spiked to the floor along with a massive sand-filled platform underneath my turntable was "good enough". I am far from "optimizing" system-wide vibration control, but far enough into it that I am convinced that many of the perceived sonic shortfalls of our existing equipment can be largely ,alleviated, or at least audibly reduced, by addressing the vibrations inherent in our components, our rooms, and our listening environment. http://www.stereophile.com/reference/52/index.html#7gKzV9vFIbL28AQH.97 I have invested less than $1k in vibration control products thus far and the positive effect is more pronounced than any $1k I have spent on anything in audio (other than room acoustical treatments and music). Significant gains in fidelity can be made for the price of a cheeseburger once you understand what does what. BTW - this is an area where the source is the highest priority. Best to you o, Dave |
o,
Don’t be fooled by the concrete slab. My whole house is on a concrete slab and everything from my TT to my SACD player to my preamp to my power supplies to my AC enhancer to my amp to my speaker cables has benefitted significantly from additional vibration isolation. And don’t forget about dissipating the internal vibrations generated by your TT motor, CD transport, and the transformers in your components.
Next for me is speaker isolation.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Hi o,
Thanks, but there are some better rigs here on Audiogon, at least more expensive ones. I like to think that my system is an example of how to get superb sound using tried and true older equipment and optimizing the inputs and outputs vs spending huge on the latest equipment without addressing the latter.
I don’t know that you ever solve all of the problems with a pre-built room, but I was fortunate to have been able to start with a dedicated room that was very close to the Golden Ratio by taking out a wall between two 12’ X15’ bedrooms, giving me a 15' wide by 24' long room with a 9' ceiling. I won’t admit to having this in mind when we bought the house, heh, heh. I also found that the "Rule of Thirds" for determining speaker and listening position worked perfectly for my situation.
The acoustical treatments definitely took the mid-bass boom away and the side panels helped a lot with imaging. It is hard to believe how much excess bass waves affect the tonal balance, detail retrieval, soundstaging, and imaging of a good system for the worse.
I also built some floor to ceiling traps of the same design, only half as wide, for the corners behind my listening position but they sucked way to much life out of the sound. I used Shakti Hallographs in those corners instead and am very pleased with the improvement in image specificity.
There are lots of bass traps for sale, but I am not aware of any that actually seal to the corners. They are mucho expensive. You can try, as Jon Risch recommended for a poor man’s solution, to stuff plastic garbage bags with rolls of Owens Corning fiberglass insulation, but I tried that and it was not anywhere close to the traps I built. Ugly as sin too.
Synergistic Research sells a product (Black Box) that they claim tunes the room so that traditional bass traps are unnecessary, but I have no direct experience with it and it is costly ($2K per) and 2 or 3 are needed for a large room like mine.
Billy Bags sells a subwoofer type product that you hang in the upper corner of the room that is claimed to negate standing bass waves. Expensive also .
You gotta either pay to play or be willing to do some work.
Best to you o,
Dave |
Hi o,
I had a tremendous mid-bass hump in my room. Spent many days rearranging speaker and listening positions and measuring the resulting frequency response, all to little avail.
I did some research on another website (something asylum) and found a lot of good information from Jon Risch. He made a strong case that bass traps should be made of 2" thick rigid fiberglass completely sealed to the corners so that it actually traps the overabundant bass waves.
So I found a local building supply warehouse nearby and bought 24" wide X 2" thick rigid yellow fiberglass panels as long as they had (6' long maybe?). This is not the loose pink stuff you buy at HD. It is very dense and rigid. I bought frame material, something like 2" wide plywood board from HD to make the frame completely around each panel and built them the exact height of my room from floor to ceiling.
After the frame was added around the entire circumference and fiberglass panels, I used spray-on adhesive and a staple gun to attach fabric that I bought cheap to the panels. I found soft butyl rubber garage door gasket at the local Ace (the kind that is used for sealing the bottom of garage doors) and trapped that all the way around the panels (no gaps) into the corners of the room behind my speakers. I had cut strips of wood to brace them into the corners every 2 feet vertically. You can see pics of these on my Virtual System page.
I also built 2' X4' panels of the same 2" rigid fiberglass using the same framing and fabric technique, but not sealed, and placed them at the first refection points halfway between the speakers and my listening position.
Worked like a charm. My audiophile friends could not believe the improvement. Total cost was around $500 and it took a few days to build them all.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Fair enough, o.
I apologize to you as it seems that I have diverted your intention of discussing/sharing electrical modifications to components away to other aspects of the hobby. I hope that you feel, as I do, that all is not wasted as we both have shared helpful ideas with the other.
I find that a trip to a fine concert hall is a better benchmark than to an audio salon to establish an aural memory reference, or to a church with good acoustics and non-amplified vocals and acoustic instruments playing, perhaps also gaining some spiritual reference material in the process as well.
For the record, I am not adverse to electrical mods. I am, as I write, impatiently awaiting a used Modwright 5400ES SACD player (due to arrive tomorrow) with every imaginable upgrade. I just lack the knowledge and soldering skills to tackle DIY electrical mods beyond soldering connectors to cables.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Hi o,
Maybe it’s just me, but this dialogue seems to be a repetitive series of ask, recommend, dispute/dismiss.
I am puzzled as the thread started with discussions about Stereophile Class A+ vs A vs B components. The listed price of the LOWEST priced component for each component category from the 2016 Recommended Components:
TT: Class A+: $30k A: $6k B: $2.3k
Tonearm: Class A+: N/A A: $1600 B: $600
Cartridge: Class A+: N/A A: $2k B: $450
Phono preamp: Class A+: $5k A: $1500 B: $750
Disc players: Class A+: $2k A: $400 B: $1200
Speakers: Class A+: N/A A: $16k B: $1700
Preamps (active): Class A+: N/A A: $4.3k B: $ 1100k
Amps: Class A+: N/A A: $3k B: $1600
So, if one put together a system with the LOWEST priced components in each category, the cost at list price would be:
Class A+/A (where no A+): $62k
Class A: $35k
Class B: $9700
This does not include cabling, stands, room treatments, vibration control, or any other costs aside from the core components themselves.
Regarding the premise in the OP, why would anyone waste a dealer’s precious time auditioning Class A+/A components if they have no provision, or plan for provision, to purchase such equipment? Is that useful? Is that even appropriate? The precious few B&M dealers that remain are trying to feed their families from the profits of actual sales of equipment and services.
Make no mistake, I am not wealthy. Thus, I spend time learning about other’s experiences with affordable gear/tweaks (instead of wasting my time and, even worse, a dealer’s time auditioning components that I will never be able to afford), seeking their advice, offering mine, and actually implementing the recommendations that fit my needs, thus far to outstanding benefit.
Much can be done with little money and the right attitude as you have found by upgrading electrical components in modestly priced gear. Yet, there are also vital and affordable sonic frontiers regarding room acoustics and vibration elimination to conquer that do not require modification to a designer’s carefully crafted component circuitry and that may yield much greater gains in sound quality.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Hi Paul,
Glad to help. I love cables too, but I found it hard to choose cabling with my room acoustics out of whack.
I did a lot of research on room acoustical treatments and consulted with several vendors. It was going to cost a lot of money. Then, I became so frustrated with that idiot Ethan Winer crashing my threads trying to convince me to buy enough of his treatments to cover every square inch of my walls that I simply built my own based on Jon Risch's recommendations.
More is definitely not better here. I even have several DIY panels left over because they overdamped the sound in my room. I have two bass traps (one in each corner behind the speakers) and two side panels, each at the first reflection point on either side wall and that's it. YMMV.
I do recommend ASC if you are not a do-it-yourselfer and have the cash.
Best to you Paul,
Dave |
Hi o,
Do the best audio equipment designers use other manufacturers’ equipment as a benchmark for the sound of their own designs or it is live music?
I don’t think that the best audio reproduction is that far away from the real thing. More likely that the process of (and techniques employed when) using microphones for recording and multi-step mixing and mastering make this goal seem unobtainable. The best recordings/masterings played on good equipment in the an acoustically-improved room sound eerily lifelike. However, I have never heard a two channel system that will properly recreate realistic spatial reproduction of a crowd clapping during a live performance (microphones are omni-directional).
Many ways to skin a cat. I am honestly happy that you are pleased with your bass traps. Really.
I agree that Acoustic Sciences Corporation (ASC) is among the best out there:
"I do recommend ASC if you are not a do-it-yourselfer and have the cash."
No doubt that the ASC products designed for your or my room and installed/tuned by their experts would put mine to shame. I just didn’t/don’t have $3-$10k to spend.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Hi o,
That's quite a compliment and also a very kind way to get your thread back on track. I am afraid that I have exhausted my knowledge of acoustical treatments here already.
I will be happy to try to answer any questions that anyone might have. Feel free to pm me.
Best to you o.
Dave |
Hi o,
If I recall correctly, the full-round ASC products have an absorptive material over half the outer surface and a reflective material over the other half, such that rotating them will provide different tuning effects. Seems that this might be key to optimal tuning or even bass wave absorption?
Best to you o,
Dave |
|
Hi o,
I thought that the prices might get your attention. It can easily cost $5-10K to correctly/completely treat a room with ASC products.
Correcting your immediate problem may be as simple as placing absorptive panels on your right wall. As you say, I would talk to the experts at ASC before setting your CC ablaze. You could try craft quilt batting from Walmart covered with cloth or even a couple of memory foam pillows (more absorption) at the first reflection point (centered at tweeter/ear height halfway between your speaker’s front baffle and your listening position) on your right wall to see what happens.
Effective bass wave attenuation is harder and much more expensive unless you build your own.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Hi Paul,
What is your cabling and power cords?
Best to you Paul,
Dave |
Hi o,
The best solutions are free ones, even if they are self-deprecating.
I would first have tried leaving the drapes up (glass is almost always the enemy of good sound so all of my windows in my listening room are blocked off with drywall) and experimenting with DIY acoustical damping on the opposite wall to see how that sounded.
If you (and your wife, for predictably different reasons) are happy with removing the drapes, then problem solved!
Best to you o,
Dave
|
randy-11 makes a good point. The latest digital EQ technology is a great solution for bass correction if you don’t have an analog source (ie TT) that would do not want converted to digital. I would still deal with basic reflection issues using acoustical absorption treatments for best results.
BTW, o, Michaels, Hobby Lobby, and Walmart all have the supplies you should need to make "pillows".
As I stated much earlier, I had to go to a professional building supply warehouse to get the 2" thick dense fiberglass board recommended in the article you linked. Be sure to wear sufficient body covering, gloves, and a respirator when handling this stuff once out of the packaging until you get it completely covered with fabric.
Best,
Dave |
Very fine preamplifiers, o. Congrats!
Dave
|
Hey o,
If you look closely at that DIY article that you linked, it gives the absorption coefficients at different frequencies for those 3 types of rigid board products. They are different at 125hz and 250hz. You might want to try to get a good handle how your room sounds in these frequencies and pick the one that best suits your desires in those ranges, if you have a choice on which you can buy locally.
Also, author says that he used 1"X2" furring strips for the frame but he also says that the Roxul he selected was "softer and has a less regular shape" that the others. I used 1" X 3" board with the Owens Corning rigid fiberglass and added some wooden corner supports inside the frame behind the panel for rigidity.
Best to you o,
Dave |
|
"I’m going to take my own medicine and go with what I know; "Koetsu" if I’m ever in that position."
o, if there ever was a category completely ruled by subjectivity according to sonic taste and system synergy, it is that of cartridges. There are so many great ones out there that it is indeed daunting to pick one, and, subsequent to that, a never ending journey seeking the opitmal associated equipment to enhance its ability to deliver sonic bliss. The elusive Holy Grail of audio.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Post of the Year, mesch. Congrats.
Dave |
What cartridge did you buy, o? Arm and table?
The hardest thing for me is to try to eyeball (and I have found critical to best sound) is azimuth and VTA/SRA. I have a Fozgometer to dial in azimuth and my arm has "on the fly" VTA adjustment.
Depending on your setup, I have some spring footers (cheap from eBay) that I recommend you try underneath the platform of your table/stand.
Best to you o,
Dave. |
|
|
Figure its worth a $100 risk...
Thanks Randy,
Dave
|
Hi o,
If moving your tubes moved the image, then they are effecting much more than low bass frequencies since these are non-directional and the bass nodes are larger than the width of your room.
Diffusion is primarily to improve imaging by scattering and diffusing wall reflections such as to dissipate them. Absorption is actually removing sound pressure and signal level at certain frequencies. So, if your room is tonally correct as set up, then adding diffusion on the wall will reduce early reflections and improve image specificity (remove the boundaries). If not, then absorption (applied correctly) will improve the spectral balance of your room.
Every audio system inside a normal size room has numerous reflection points along the walls and the ones that occur at the first reflection point, midway along the wall between your speakers’ baffles and your listening position, are the most detrimental to imaging specificity, so something should be done to reduce/eliminate them. Ignoring bass for a moment, if the sound is too bright, then absorption at the first reflection point (midpoint along the wall between the speaker baffle and your listening position) will help to correct that. If you feel that it is just right, then avoid absorption and go with diffusion at the first reflection point, lest you suck the life out of your sound.
My thinking, right or otherwise, is to address spectral balance first (absorption). I suggest you begin determining what your room is doing acoustically regarding the spectral (frequency) range. Do you have a test CD with different test tone frequencies and a RatShack analog sound pressure meter?
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Hi o, Testing SPL in your room at different frequencies will give you an idea of where in the frequency spectrum your room is accentuating sound pressure levels (SPL) and where it is attenuating them, so that you can: 1) know which frequencies to target for attenuation 2) see the effects of placing absorption panels at different locations. As much as it pains me to link this site, this is a good tutorial on measuring your room: http://realtraps.com/art_spl.htmAll you need is media that generates different known frequencies through your speakers, a radio shack analog (one with a needle meter) sound pressure meter, and a lot of time. http://www.ebay.com/itm/REALISTIC-SOUND-LEVEL-METER-33-2050-RADIO-SHACK-/201727489735?hash=item2ef7e...The Stereophile Test CD is a good one, but only available through them, so may take too long to procure. I found this download if you are computer savvy and have a way for your pc to play through your system: http://decibelcar.com/apps/199-download-test-tones-a-frequency-sweeps-mp3-cd-format.htmlOnce you develop a plot like in the link for each speaker, then you will know where to begin experimenting with your absorption panels and have a way to measure the results vs pure trial and error. Best to you o, Dave |
Passive analog eq’s will destroy the phase coherence of your sound because of the way they work. I actually use one in my vintage R&R system to great advantage where imaging, soundstaging, phase and time coherence, and accurate tonal reproduction are of very little to no concern, but funking (yes that is an "n") up the sound to provide the overly-ripe bass, depressed mids, and tizzy treble of the era are the order of the day.
As someone (randy?) already pointed out, smart digital eq’s that accurately measure and adjust hundreds of frequency parameters using computer algorithms may be the order of the day for mid-to-low bass correction without the phase shift IF you only use digital sources. A good friend of mine with a $250k+ system uses this capability of his JL Fathom subs and swears by it. No turntable.
Still need to measure the room for 1k and up frequencies to identify and treat hot spots with absorption and then perhaps diffusion to improve imaging and soundstaging.
Dave
|
Hi o,
RS still has stores in the Houston area, although it is difficult to find anything useful there due to the swell of phone products taking over the stores and the employees are largely worse than useless, though tenacious in arm twisting customers to sign up for cell phone plans.
"easy to correct"...using the original intent of this thread as an analogy, would replacing or adding electrical parts indiscriminately be an advisable path for improving the sonic accuracy of a component vs measuring their effect on the electrical performance of the subject component? Acoustical design is science just like electrical design.
Dave |
Best wishes for success to you, o.
Dave |
Sounds good, o. Don't breath the fiberglass!
The fluted wooden drapery poles from BB&B should be here any day, so I will then get started on the DIY diffusers and let you and Randy know how it goes.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Hi o,
The wood body Grados came with a very nice stylus guard that stays in place until deliberately removed. If lost, careful application of light cardboard or paper strip bent into a "U" affixed with tape to the sides of the cartridge will work. A good pair of non-magnetic sharp-point precision tweezers to attach the signal wires is mandatory. When it comes time to set alignment, VTF, VTA, azimuth, etc. sans stylus guard, find your mental calm place and avoid caffeine, nicotine, etc. and disruptions from others. If you get aggravated, stop and return to it later.
Careful not to overtighten the threaded mounting screws if it is a wood body. Big headaches will result!
Best of luck o,
Dave |
o,
The digital gauge is much better and less likely to damage your stylus than the see-saw gauge. Make sure that the one you bought is non-magnetic.
My Grado "The Reference" was the low-output version but I never cottoned to its sound in my system. There are thousands of audiophiles that love Grados. If you like the sound, that's all that matters.
I went to a HOMC Van den Hul MC Two (great cart if your phono section has limited gain) and then to the Transfiguration Orpheus L. The better MCs have the sound that I crave in my hi-end system, yet I have several vintage MMs and Electrets that I love in my vintage system.
I look forward to reading of your experiences with the acoustical treatment and will be glad to help in any way I can.
Best to you o,
Dave |
Very glad to hear that you are pleased. Just one thing, at least drape some sheets over the fiberglass. You don't want to be breathing those fibers my friend.
Best to you o,
Dave
|
Very cool bwaslo. Thanks.
Best to you,
Dave
|
I had the same experience, o. I have several panels and two bass traps in the attic as a result. So much for Ethan Winer's "cover the entire room" philosophy.
I am truly happy to read that you have achieved your desired results. Enjoy your "new" system.
Best to you o,
Dave |
I am happy that things are going well for you my friend.
Merry Christmas,
Dave |
|
|
