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. |
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..... |
Actually Roger is a proponent of understanding power requirements as it relates to driving speakers and achievinng adequate listening levels, regardless of the sensitivity of the speaker. I can recall discussing with him a customer of his that uses his low sensitivity ESLs with his 5 watt EM-7 amp and getting adequate volume from them. I learned a lot from that conversation.
You can currently buy a direct drive amp from Roger for use with Acoustat speakers sans their transformers. The amp puts out some serious voltage. For those in the Bay Area Roger has started an electronics school in the Berkeley area. Check it out if you are interested in learning more about the science of this hobby rather than..... |
Perhaps your observation is not true of all electrostatic speakers, certainly not mine. IMO, In a well set up system, Sound Lab electrostatic speakers retain their ability to present an exceptionally full bodied and rich presentation with full resolution at all volume levels. And, my ears are 71 years old! |
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. |
Roger Modjeski of Music Reference/RAM Labs is making an ESL speaker that is direct-driven, but it's not cheap. He is also a proponent of low-power amps/high-sensitivity loudspeakers. |
Nobody is suggesting that air molecules are charged at very high frequencies. They do however resonate when immersed in a very high frequency field of the correct frequency. That's how the molecules get jump started, I.e., moving. You can charge the air as it were using ionizers such as the one I sell, but many others, too, you know, like negative ion room purifiers. |
Hi Atmashphere, Electrostats that are not direct driven already have a transformer to step up the voltage built in. Would it not be better to replace the transformer in the speaker with one that raises the impedance, than to add a set of Zero's? Certainly- if it can be done. Broadstone, just in case- air molecules cannot be 'charged' at GHz frequencies... actually that sounds kind of dangerous, like being in a microwave oven. |
I just found this thread, and can certainly relate. I'm "only" 64 (!), but from playing drumset in bands since I was 14 and attending who knows how many live shows, I now have mild tinnitus and high-frequency hearing loss. I also am a long-time electrostatic (original Quads) owner/listener. I realize you highly value the equalizer in your particular system, but if I was desiring higher low-level resolution/transparency out of a system, it would be high on my list of suspects. The opamps in that Behringer are quite smeared sounding devices, unfortunately. The second thing I would consider is a really good tube pre-amp. It is not only solid state power amps that become veiled at low-level listening, but many ss pre-amps (and sources too) are inferior to tubes at amplifying those tiny microvolt signals. But more than those two considerations, I must join those in suggesting that for lower-volume resolution and dynamics, high-efficiency speakers are definitely the way to go. They also play well with tubes! |
Just to add that I'm not sure if the SteinMusic Harmonizer works similarly in principle to the Ultras but it might. The Harmonizer - at least according to what I've read - operates by "energizing" the air molecules in the room so that when the acoustic waves propagate across the room via the air molecules they move more efficiently because the air molecules got a jump start. Instead of just sitting there they had already started to move. Kind of like an Olympic runner getting a jump start on the field by beating the gun. |
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'. |
"ZD, thanks for the "whest" idea but I'm going to stick to end of the stream experiments for now."
My intent when I posted the info on the Whest was just to lend some creditability to the idea that having the audio signal intact above what we can actually hear is something that's probably worth while. I don't think you could get one, even if you wanted it. I'm pretty sure they're not made any more, and I don't think I've ever seen a used one come up for sale. |
Ooops a daisy, I meant the over GHz frequency. |
The Ultras of course work quantum mechanically. Yes, I know you were afraid I was going to say that. Hence the over MHz fequency. The Ultras condition the air molecules and make the acoustic waves propagate more efficiently through the air, like a traffic cop in the city who makes the traffic run more smoothly and efficiently. In other words, even if someone already has super tweeters in his system, Townshends or whatever, the Ultras will improve that system, too. |
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. |
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. |
"04-09-15: Broadstone
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. "
I'm not sure if they still make it, but Whest came out with a component to do exactly what you are talking about. It goes in between a CD player and the preamp. CD stops at 20k, and this component tries to reconstruct the high frequency waveforms above and beyond what you can hear. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to hear it for myself, so I can't say if it works or not. But It does seem like a good idea. |
Hi Atmashphere, Electrostats that are not direct driven already have a transformer to step up the voltage built in. Would it not be better to replace the transformer in the speaker with one that raises the impedance, than to add a set of Zero's? |
This has been very interesting to read. |
I understand Ultra Tweeters are still available. They produce only very high frequencies, just over 1 GHz. I used to have the Ultras in my system and even had the Deluxe Ultras in the same system. |
Piezo tweeters usually don't need a crossover- you can just hook them up. Check with the manufacturer to be sure.
You may need some kind of level control to tame its output. |
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".
|
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. |
"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.
Broadstone (Threads | Answers | This Thread)"
I was just reading through your comments again and have a question. You say that the EQ helps but its not a complete fix. What are you lacking? What is it that needs to be corrected to get the sound you need?
Also, I have something for you to try, if you haven't already done so. I'm sure you recall some of the posts where people feel that there's usually a sweet spot to where an amp will sound its best. For the most part, I would agree. You can control the overall gain with your EQ, in addition to the individual EQ bands. If you raise and lower the overall gain with the EQ, you can vary how hard your amp is working, while keeping the SAME volume level. With some experimenting, you should be able to identify your amps sweet spot. |
A super tweeter is one that operates at about 10KHz and above. A regular tweeter might only roll in at about 2KHz or so. |
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. |
Hi Broadstone, There's a thread on the Marin Logan Owners website that has the title," i tried 34 amps in 12 months with the Montis, My review is here."
In this thread the OP makes the following statement:
"This brings me to the mark levinsons h series (532h and 533h to be specific). They are THE ONLY amplifier that i can listen to at low volumes and HEAR everything and each detail. It doesn't lose a thing even at low volume. I have never experienced this before."
You might want to check out the thread. The guy is still trying different amps so you might want to talk to him. |
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. |
"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.
Broadstone (Threads | Answers | This Thread)"
That's a good observation. I don't know if FIM distortion would be the proper technical term, but that's kind of what's happening. By having the lower frequencies not proportioned correctly, they were having an effect on other frequencies.
Something similar, that you can try with your EQ, is to do the same thing with sounds that are bothering you, and the EQ is not helping. Sometimes, if you try to lower specific frequencies with an EQ in an attempt to fix an annoyance, you'll find that sometimes the problem gets worse. What happens is that along with lowering the problem sounds, other elements that are in the same frequency range, that are not giving problems, get lowered as well. This may actually have an enhancing, or spotlight effect on the problem, because you're cleaning up everything around it. On occasion, if you're lucky, you can actually raise the EQ frequencies that you are working with, and the other sounds in the same range, over power the problem. I know that sounds counter intuitive, but it does sometimes work. |
"04-03-15: Broadstone
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."
Sorry if there was any confusion. My response was to Mapman's comment. I know your situation is unique and you have reasons for using an EQ that are outside the norm. If you didn't have your hearing issue, then my post would be more relevant to you. But I was in no way suggesting that you should stop using your EQ. If you'll remember, I was one of the people that pushed you to try it. I have the same EQ myself that I use to try and fix bad recordings. |
Broadstone- I realized how seemingly inefficient my beloved electrostats were, and how high the threshold was for system noise, only after I switched to horns. I started back in the early 70's with a pair of old Quads (a/k/a '57's) and used them standing alone, then with various subwoofers and super tweets, including Deccas and Sequerra ribbons, before switching to a Crosby-modded '63 back in 1990. They served me very well until the mid-2000's. (I still have both pairs of Quads, and the Deccas, sorely in need of resto). When I switched to horns, my system was noisy as hell! All kinds of squirrely stuff, from noise on the line, to tube rush, to low level grounding anomalies. This isn't to dump on electrostats- to the contrary, still think the original Quad is the best mid-range reproducer in the biz, but what it taught me was that all the low level nuance (like the noise) was probably below the threshold of hearing on these things (and my ears were much younger then). Not suggesting you run out and buy horns, but I offer this only as another way to look at the same experience.
There is also something else- it seems that for every system, and every record, there is a 'right' volume that sounds natural. I rarely listen at really loud levels, but to realize what's on the record, I find that there is a spot that is just naturally right for that recording, and it varies. |
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. |
Low level resolution starts with source. What is your system reference for source? |
Adding a super tweeter would be another method. |
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.
|
Phase is tricky! We can't hear phase on simple tones like a sine wave, but we can hear it in a spectrum of frequencies. Our ears use phase to construct the sound stage. If phase is altered, it can also be interpreted as tonality.
I had this demonstrated in spades years ago when I was trying to find why a phono section was sounding bright. It turned out that the manufacturer had abandoned the RIAA curve at frequencies above 50KHZ- well above human hearing- but the phase shift that resulted sounded like brightness. The fix was to restore the RIAA curve even though the preamp hardly had much bandwidth above that!
An EQ unit between me an the source would be one of the things I would look at eliminating if low level detail in the system seemed to be lacking. There are often other ways of dealing with hearing loss. |
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. |
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. |
"04-02-15: Mapman
Not be heretic about it but our ears do not have flat frequency response to start with, hear differently at different volumes, and become less sensitive over time as noted. So digital signal processing or equalization may be all the doctor ordered to provide any needed corrections."
It may be a reasonable fix in some systems, but not all. Not taking account that its another component in the chain, an EQ alters phase on whatever frequencies you are adjusting. In my main system, for example, I was careful to select components that keep the signal unaltered, with regards to phase, from my source to my speakers. Using an EQ would undo all that. |
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. |
Broadstone, according to what I have heard, it should also sound generally smoother without loosing any detail. |
I find it funny how some will change any of their hardware at the blink of an eye the instant something does not sound exactly right but will never consider the simple things that might be done to correct common simple problems like that fact that our hearing is neither perfect nor static over time.
Equipment makers gotta love it though. |
Realize also that dynamics and frequency response are related, not two completely independent aspects of sound, althoughthat is how we tend to think about it often. An issue with dynamics might still be solved by adjusting frequency response.
An example that makes this clear is that there is NO dynamics when there is no frequency response that we are able to hear, say at 22Khz. But the same sound might well get our dog's attention. |
Not be heretic about it but our ears do not have flat frequency response to start with, hear differently at different volumes, and become less sensitive over time as noted. So digital signal processing or equalization may be all the doctor ordered to provide any needed corrections. See the chart to the right in particular in this very informative Interactive Music Frequency Response Chart . Take not of what instruments produce sound at what frequencies and how that relates to teh sensitivity of our ears in the chart. It will help to get a handle on things better perhaps before taking any action, if needed. Gear that sounded good when younger probably is still sounding equally if in good operating condition. So you can change gear or do some basic equalization/signal processing to correct the problem. Many ways to skin the cat. |
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? |
Since you have a solid state amp that does OK on the speaker right now my first inclination would be to simply go with the 2X multiplier tap, IOW 4 ohms. |
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. |
Listening is the best means. The use of the ZEROs should not represent a compromise to the tonality of the system. |
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?
|
