Yes, ZD, there are several places for me to do some auditioning and, to a limited extent, I've tried this and is how I ended up buying the Ethos pair several months ago. One of the things that I've been overlooking here is the equalizer, an oversite that might be hard to believe since I spent at least 3 threads extolling the magic of the Behringer DEQ2496. I'll be experimenting to see if I can use it in place of the loudness button of old.
Atmasphere, some of the most important information that I've received on these forums was yours when I was asking for advice regarding the use of tube amps with electrostats. Your description of the current / power relationship in this discussion of tubes versus SS was particularly useful in my understanding this comparison. It also reminds me that, based on these factors, tube amps may be less susceptible to low volume distortion. If my understanding is correct I would guess this to at least possibly be the case. |
Ok, I'll try a combined response to these well considered suggestions. As far as trying more sensitive speakers like compression drivers, for example, that will be on my list. As I said earlier, the speakers that I liked best in almost all respects were the Canalis Animas which are not particularly efficient but in my audition of them I was seated no more than 6 feet away. In my home the best were the Jamo Concert 8's which ARE fairly sensitive at 94 dB. I was driving these with a Rogue Audio Sphinx, the same amp which I used with the ML Odysseys which combination seemed not to have the low volume problem that I'm having now.
Once again, Atmasphere, you've introduced another here-to-fore never considered issue. The possibility of increased distortion at volume levels below a certain point would never have crossed my mind. My current amp is the Peachtree Audio 220; I would really like to see what the difference would be if I were able to reinstall the Rogue Audio amp. |
Atmasphere, if the Peachtree 220 amp is the cause of this low volume distortion and compromised detail, I'm wondering if using a more efficient speaker might actually exacerbate rather than improve the situation. On the other hand if using a lower wattage amp would also lower the point where this distortion begins maybe this could be another route I could take. In my setup, because I'm using the Peachtree Nova 80WPC integrated amp as the preamp, it would be a simple matter of removing the 220 from the system making the Nova a stand alone amplification source. In doing this, of course, I will lose the EQ setup as well as whatever attributes that the higher powered 220 provides.
I've been looking into speakers to possibly replace the only 6 month old Martin Logans and have thought about trying to buy back my 94dB Jamo Concert 8's. In my research I came across some very impressive reviews of the Grand Tetons and spoke to the owner (Alex Loon) who is apparently very proud of his design. I know almost nothing about Wavetouch and there is no way to audition them but he has a no-questions-asked return policy so I'm giving that some thought. If anyone knows more than what I've been able to find out, I'd appreciate hearing it. |
I appreciate the well considered advice regarding headphones and I do use them occasionally but only to shut out competing activities in our house and to limit my intrusion on others. Even though their sound reproduction is incredibly resolved, it just doesn't sound natural to me as if, like Larryi stated, the sound is originating in my head with no sense of a soundstage. Whatever the reason, even if only psychological, for everyday listening I'll not be using them.
On the other hand, because my stated goal is to acheive better detail at lower volume settings and, as I am very satisfied with my system at moderate to higher volumes, and because chasing it in other ways would be more involved and expensive, it probably makes better sense to develop a bit more flexibility and continue to use them for those described ocassional circumstances.
I've needed to upgrade my headphones anyway so will look into that. I have the Bose noise cancellers which work well for their designed purpose but are not well suited, IMO, for anything like audiophile listening. I also have a set of "fairly" decent on-ear phones that sound OK but don't do a great job of shutting out unwanted environmental sounds.
I have a question, though, regarding length of headphone wire. Although my seating position is only about 14 feet from my amp, the length of wire necessay to reach my location w/o running it across the living room would be about 28 feet. Will this be an issue? |
Atmasphere, based on advice provided in my threads and many others of yours that I've read, I'm confident that this will have a good chance for success. I would already done as you suggest, but I'm waiting for help to gain access to the back of my entertainment center. It's large and has two heavy bridges between the 2 towers that I am unable to even assist with. When my 4 grandsons return from a camping trip, maybe I can talk them into doing this "one more time".
What other issues am I likely to run into going from 220 to 80 WPC? Thanks again. |
What a coincidence. I went outside right after I sent my last post to see what a police car was doing on our block and two of my neighbors were out also. I told them the situation and they offered their help to get the bridges down from the entertainment center and I went directly to the task of switching the speaker cables. It did make a difference using the 80W Nova as you suggested it might and I wasn't surprised that your advice worked. However, because I'm not very good at discerning subtle changes, I WAS surprised that I was able to hear it.
I also tried listening at higher volumes (even to the overture from tannhauser) and, possibly, because it wasn't at concert listening levels, it didn't seem substantially lacking in any important way. I know I have more listening to do before making a decision but we've substantiated at least one important issue regarding this power/distortion issue and I thank you once again. |
Going back to an earlier discussion where I asked advice regarding the use of tubes with electrostatics, I kind of abandoned the idea because a number of issues arose that were a little involved for me to get comfortable with. One of the main ones of these was the prospect of finding a tube amp with a 2 ohm tap and whether using the ZEROS at the 4 or 8 ohm tap would accomplish the same thing. Based primarily on Atmasphere's explanation I assume that both approaches are viable and equal(?) in their ability to handle these extreme loads. I'm not claiming any kind of complete understanding of the relationship of feedback to distortion or its control, but my gut tells me that the ZERO approach using "normal" taps from the amp would be the better choice, if for no other reason than having greater latitude in choosing an amplifier.
Once again, I find myself in a discussion that exceeds my experience and level of expertise but realize that just because I can't hear anything above about 8000Hz doesn't mean that those frequencies above that level don't contribute to distortion. However, in regard to those "shunt approaching" frequencies described, there are no musical instruments, at least in the base harmonic, that come near 20KHz. If my understanding is correct, then, does this mean that using the 4 ohm tap with the electrostatics may be acceptable at low to moderate volumes? |
Good, I guess my understanding wasn't THAT far off. Based on what I've learned in these discussions, then, I am interested again in trying a tube based power amp with the ZEROs. I will still keep the Peachtree Nova as a preamp for its latitude of source connections and keep the ML's partly because they're new and partly because, having used electrostats for 35+ years, I'm habituated to their sound. The next step will be to decide on an amp. Atmasphere, does it make a difference whether the ZERO unit is located at the amp or speaker end of the cable?...I'm considering using the naked ZERO but, based on cost considerations, it will be awhile before I make these purchases. |
Atmasphere, I read your article on the development history but forgot to ask an important question. Would it make sense to try impedance matching with my SS amp first before buying the tube amp to see if that improves my low volume issue? Also, if I plan to use the ZERO might I just as well get an OTL amp? |
I've pretty much decided to buy an autoformer whether or not I decide to switch to tube amplification but I have a question re choosing the best impedance tap to use. Because I use electrostatic hybrids, the amp sees a very wide range of impedance loading relative to the frequency of the signal. With this in mind, along with the term "matching" in my thoughts, and having awareness of the 4 ohm "nominal" impedance of the MLs, how do I choose the best tap?
In my limited research on the subject I assume that 16 ohms (if reachable) is at least a safe starting point. Also, when considering the starting point to calculate multiplier values, does one use as a starting point the 4 ohm nominal or the less than 2 ohm value of the estimated lowest impedance that may be expected?
|
Actually, Atmashere, I don't anticipate that tonality would be compromised; my goal and belief in trying the Zeros is to improve tonality through reduction of low volume distortion. Because most of the info I've been able to find address autoformers in general as relates to tube amps and none, as far as I've found, discuss the choice or calculation method to determine which impedance tap would have the best chance working with my system, that question still remains. |
Thanks. When I get it, that's where I'll start and I'm anxious to try it. Should I anticipate any changes beyond the low volume distortion issue being addressed here? |
ZD, I missed your last post before I wrote mine. Your comment regarding the use of the EQ to unburden the amp is the kind of creative thinking that most of us would not have envisioned. No, then, I haven't tried that approach.
You asked what I was still lacking and I don't have a good answer except that it just sounds better at moderate volumes. Because that has probably to do with the very nature of how systems work or how sound is perceived, I might simply be expecting too much.
What I'll do at this point is put the EQ and power amp back in the system and see if I can do something with your suggestion on finding and operating within the "sweet spot".
|
Thank you for pointing this out. Right now I'm waiting for final membership verification from MLO and will read his post later on when I'm back home. Based on what I've read, the Mark Levinson amps are certainly very capable and I assume that his observations are valid and would transfer to my speakers. However, the models mentioned are a little out of my financial comfort zone right now especially since I just bought the new speakers and have no way of auditioning these amps in my home first. |
Mapman, I don't see your response in any way heretical. As a matter of fact, your response here as many of your others seems more in the down-to-earth, experience based approach to problem solving. I know I will never again hear music the same as when I was younger and I finally realize that, save for one component, chasing this issue through equipment changes may be fun but not likely to result in significant improvement.
The component that I refer to is the equalizer. To many self considered audiophiles the use of one falls into the category of heresy and is an affront to their sensibilities. As I've said before, though, if one has an unrestricted budget, a purpose built listening room with all well selected components and has perfect hearing, they will still likely be looking for improvements through addition of or changes to equipment; as an example, upgrading equipment is one of the most popular subjects on these forums.
Now that I'm using the equalizer (Behringer DEQ2496), between automatic room balancing and frequency adjustment to compensate for age related hearing loss, I'm able to get back much of what I've lost. If I had discovered the EQ approach years ago I could have saved significant time and money in this quest. I tried, as I said previously, to use the EQ as a sort of loudness control for low volume listening but it hasn't really worked that well so far. That being the case, I still want to try the autoformer approach and will as soon as my checkbook recovers from purchase the new speakers. |
Thanks, Zd. I'm not advocating use of an EQ as a solution for all problems and I do understand, or at least am aware of, phase issues associated with additional artifacts being introduced into the sound stream. However, if I had the know how and did what you described in the first place, I would still be faced with the issues of my hearing loss, the extent of which is not bilaterally equal. To further complicate the scenario, my listening room, unfortunately, is my living room and using the auto room equalization capability of the 2496 has resulted in a noticeable improvement that I've been unable to acheive by other means.
About 2 years ago I had a motorcycle accident which resulted in my having to use crutches for awhile. Using them wasn't as efficient as normal but it was a heck of a lot better than going w/o them. I look at the EQ a lot like that except that, unlike crutches, I'm walking better than before the injury.
I guess what I'm saying, then, is that for someone like me who has been in the hobby for over 50 years but have only recently delved into its more technical intricacies, the EQ provides adjustments that allow more direct, wide ranging and relatively simple control. |
ZD, one of the many things that I've had difficulty understanding, and I know to be important, is the relationship of signal phase and sound quality, especially how it comes into play in designing a system. I've read several papers on the subject and one of the common points is that phase alterations are generally not considered good and that EQ's have a phase altering effect. I fully understand that to be the case but understand also that every artifact in the system that has to do with signal processing will also.
In two articles it was at least alluded to that CD players alter signal phase but that the shift is linear across the spectrum so that this phase change would be audibly unrecognized. Even this I don't understand; if the signal across the board is delayed by the same amount, wouldn't the phase change in the upper frequencies be more dramatic because of their waves being closer together?
I'm in this way over my head and probably off base in some of what I think I understand but I've not been able to get how one would go about putting components together to minimize the effects of phase alteration and how one component (in this case, the EQ) would have a greater negative effect than any other. Is it just because any "unnecessary" additions exacerbate the cascading effects of phase alteration w/o providing an off setting improvement?
BTW, and somewhat off subject, some time ago I started a thread regarding phase testing using pink noise and how I noticed some migration of the sound as I progressed through increasing frequencies. I performed the same test after I did the automatic room equalization and, although this resulted in auto adjustment in only the lower bass frequencies, this migration of sound in the upper frequencies seems to have been reduced. |
ZD, thanks for the clarification and I DO remember your advice/suggestions regarding the use of an equalizer as a potential solution so your response was a little confusing. On the same subject, I don't remember if I thanked you for that but I'm doing it now; addition of the equalizer has been one of the best single things I've done. I don't always have it on but when it's needed, I don't see another way that I could've had the same success addressing my personal issues.
I'll do as you suggest here and try some of these adjustments, as counter intuitive as they may seem
Whart, I've used Martin Logan electrostats for about 35 years now (SL3, Prodigy, CLS2, Odyssey, Ethos and a center channel which I don't remember the model of) with all kinds of decent ancillary gear so am no stranger to their unique demands. In so many ways I like, or have at least become habituated to, their sound so I'm not likely to give them up. I agree with several of your comments but, even though I recognize the possibility, I'm not convinced that their efficiency is the problem. |
Tricky is an understatement from my standpoint. Phase relationships are so important to realistic sound reproduction one hand and potentially destructive on the other that understanding it sufficient to work with it in my system is making my brain tired. It's one of those things that, at this point in my development, I'll just have to count on the experts for guidance.
As far as dealing with individual hearing issues goes, I can only think of two things beyond the EQ that can work. Nearfield listening is one which I have in my garage setup (repurposed B&K AVR 307, iTunes lossless files and Celestion A speakers) which is not too special but sounds very good. The other is the use of hearing aids which I don't tolerate well because of ear canal problems. I've gone through 2 attempts using quite advanced aids and choose not to continue using them except as a last resort when or if the time comes for that.
All sources in my system (CD player, Apple TV, Sony Jukebox and DAC are routed through the preamp) and each, when in use, will contribute to phase alteration to some extent. BTW, how do autoformers fit into the scenario. As far as eliminating the EQ goes, I feel it has been too important an addition to consider removing it at this point.
|
Trying a "super tweeter" sounds worth considering but, as with everything else, there are a couple of things I need to better understand. First, I'm not sure what the term "super" denotes unless it simply describes a driver capable of reproducing frequencies beyond that of "normal" tweeters. Anyway, because the piezo is, in effect, a capacitor that would be connected across the speaker posts, I assume, would it not also try to act as a HF filter to the signal delivered to the panel? I'll study this approach a little more and keep it on my list.
Coincidentally, I initiated a thread a while back regarding the use of a piezoelectric transducer with a full range driver to avoid having to incorporate a crossover. I got some grief over that post but it was something I tried in the late fifties with a "sweet sixteen" speaker that I had built and it worked well for me. I mention this only because at least two of the listed so called super tweeters are piezoelectric.
Davide, if I understand your comments, I guess all issues in the chain potentially have their beginnings at the source. In my case I was able to acheive some relief in low volume resolution using a lower powered amplifier. As far as which component should be under looked at first for this issue, my first consideration would be the speaker. I say this because, although they were one of my favorite speakers in the past (still are) I've owned two pairs of Magnepans and found them not at all good resolving at lower volumes. |
I've become a strong believer in the part that all frequencies play in such important factors as timbre, even, or maybe especially, those beyond our sensory capabilities. As was discussed earlier, the base frequencey of most any instrument or voice falls within even my upper audible range of about 8-9000Hz. Their associated and critical upper harmonics, though, will far exceed these values.
For this reason I'm convinced that their enhancement can be valuable to realism without, as far as I can see, much potential downside. I will be trying it then but I still need some guidance on their use. First, I've read that a x-over is necessary which I can understand if one decides to use ribbons for example. If one were to use piezoelectrics, though, they are LF limiting by their nature. I'm not sure they are the best choice though.
Anyway, my concern remains re the use of a crossover; I don't want the transducer panel robbed of any portion of the delivered upper frequencies so a crossover doesn't work in my way of thinking. As I also remarked on before, I see the piezo as a capacitor which if installed across speaker terminals, would tend to do somewhat the same thing. What I need to know, then, is it ok to simply attach the "super tweeter" w/o additional circuitry across the speaker terminals. |
Atmasphere, yes, the fact that piezos don't need a crossover as well as the fact that I've used them with some success many years ago is what makes me comfortable with their use. I still have this nagging question, though, regarding their being seen by the signal as a parallel installed capacitor. If that's a valid observation and the HF signal to the transducer is reduced by that capacitance, I suppose the piezo would be producing those frequencies at and above those that were lost through its addition. I also agree that some attenuation might be needed; when I used them before, they were a bit conspicuous.
Geoffkait, I've been reading about the Golden Ear Ultra (I assume this is what you're referring to) and, so far am leaning in that direction. I've already begun looking for one.
ZD, thanks for the "whest" idea but I'm going to stick to end of the stream experiments for now. Going back to your discussion regarding use of the EQ to force the amp to work more within its sweet spot, I haven't tried that yet but I have a related question. To get an idea of how this concept might work, would introducing resistance in the speaker cable achieve the same thing? It seems that, in either case, one is forcing the amp to see an increased load. |
Geoffkait, I meant to say "Golden Sound". I've done more reading though, and it seems that they are capable of reproducing only extreme high frequencies (and I doubt gigahertz claim), ignoring those important HF harmonics closer to the upper audible limits. This is only my gut assumption and I could be way off base but I'd be more comfortable with something like the Townshend which starts at 15k Hz and goes up from there; its price, though, is a little hard to take. I'm still studying the subject but I also wonder what the HF limits of the rest of the system are. Are any of my components capable of producing or passing through a 40KHz signal. As an experiment I may buy a pair of piezos as a cheap starting point before I invest in one of the way more expensive ones. |
Geoffkait, I meant to say "Golden Sound". I've done more reading though, and it seems that they are capable of reproducing only extreme high frequencies (and I doubt gigahertz claim), ignoring those important HF harmonics closer to the upper audible limits. This is only my gut assumption and I could be way off base but I'd be more comfortable with something like the Townshend which starts at 15k Hz and goes up from there; its price, though, is a little hard to take. I'm still studying the subject but I also wonder what the HF limits of the rest of the system are. Are any of my components capable of producing or passing through a 40KHz signal. As an experiment I may buy a pair of piezos as a cheap starting point before I invest in one of the way more expensive ones. |
Geoffkait, I do have some background in and understanding of quantum physics but never in any way associated with sound fortification so this explanation is interesting and I'll be giving it some thought....as if I needed something else to tax my aging brain. Anyway, I had pretty much written the Ultras off but I'll go back and rethink them, and others, from a potentially new point of view.
ZD, I understand your point and get the idea of squeezing out as much HF as your system is capable of. It also reminds me of another issue; doesn't using vinyl as one's source acheive some of that over CD's to begin with? I'm not ready to convert,..just sayin'. |
Geoffkait, the concept that you're discussing and how this is mechanically acheived is beyond my ability to discuss in any intelligent way. The explanation reminds me of how one lightning bolt prepares an ionized low resistance pathway for the next discharge or, more simplistically, providing lower air resistance to both cars in a drafting scenario. I thank you for this input which I in no way dispute, but I'd have to go back to school on this one.
Bdp, thank you but the issue I describe occurred well before incorporation of the EQ so, even though it's contribution to potential sound degradation described by you and others are valid points, I don't think the equalizer is the culprit in this case. As a matter of fact, based on testing discussed here, the power amp and EQ are temporally out of the system as I write this. As far as the Behringer and it's specific potential shortcomings goes, I tried 2 other brands before settling on the DEQ2496. Anyway, because I'm very happy with my current setup in all respects except for this low volume issue and my feeling is that it finds its primary cause in my personal hearing deficiency, I'm staying with my existing components for now. The bottom line in defense of the EQ, I suppose, is my unequal hearing problems which have no other acceptable solutions. |
Twb, you're right; I haven't heard them all and, likely, never will. My post was probably mistitled if it leads readers to think that I mean to indict electrostats, in general, as deficient in low volume resolution...I dont. It was not a statement but was worded in a way meant to inspire discussion. I don't know how much of the thread you read but the discussion centered around Martin Logan products and their specific characteristics because those are what I've owned for over 35 years. To reiterate, these consisted of Prodigy, SL3, CLS2, Odyssey and, now, the Ethos.
One of the things that I've more than alluded to here is the role that age related hearing has in this issue. I suspect that it's a relatively significant one in my case and just because our ages are close, does not mean that our hearing losses are of the same type or degree. For consideration also is that we don't necessarilly all have the same expectations of our equipment or what we like to hear.
Cleo, thanks, but I'm already familiar with those discussions so maybe I'll..... |
OK, after all of this discussion and well considered advice I've decided on at least an interim resolution. As I've alluded to in this and other posts, I'm using my EQ to accommodate several perceived deficiencies which have mostly to do with personal hearing issues. Because this particular EQ (Behringer DEQ2496) provides storage slots for many different equalization programs it's possible to design customized listening for specific scenarios. In my case, for low level listening I've made adjustments that mimmick the "loudness" controls typically found on older amplifiers which brings back what I was missing at these lower volumes.
For listening at "normal" levels the only adjustment in place is that created using the automatic room equalization capability which affects only those frequencies below 500Hz. Room EQ settings are not included in the low volume settings as lowering those frequencies would be inconsistent with the "loudness" settings goal.
The bottom line is that because I'm very happy with the quality of sound from my system in almost every way, for those circumstances requiring less obtrusive volumes, my best approach may be to forget using my primary setup and go to my second system.
On a related note, I'll reiterate the finding that, based on information provided in this thread, substituting a lower powered amp (Peachtree Audio Nova) for the 220W amp actually DID reduce low volume distortion resulting in improved resolution. I put the power amp back in the system, though, because it's performance is better from an overall standpoint. |
