Giving up on Power Race, and going SET?

Tom,

The pushrods aren't really the problem at rpm. It's the spring pressure that makes them flex. In this type of motor (and mine as well) we use a rev kit which is just too cool. You use a lighter spring on the valve and beneath the cylinder head, inside the lifter valley, you have another spring set that goes into the roller lifter that works in harmony with the other spring on that valve. Just imagine a spring at the valve and a spring that pushes the lifter down. It takes a lot of stress and flex out of the pushrod. Also, we can use 7/16" big block pushrods. Of course, both the top end and the bottom end use stud girdles. I'll try and find a rev kit photo and send it to you via email.

He must be running a billet crank. I was limited by class rules to the stock cast crank, nitrided and balanced. It was known with my type motor, that with the stock crank, the engine would come apart at about 9000 rpm, due to crank whip. I even ran an "outlaw" steel main bearing cap on the center journal, to help stabilize the crank. I set the valve spring tension at 8600, so the valves would float at that rpm, and act like a rev limiter. I didn't have high enough lift to worry that I would clash a valve into a piston, even when the valves floated. The chamber was deep enough to keep that from happening.

What kind of pushrods can handle 12000 rpm? We had trouble getting our Lotus 23B over 11500 with DOHC.

Tom,

I have an acquaintence that runs a 69 Camaro Z28 that runs in one of the NHRA Stock classes. He pulls 12,500 rpm shift points. If you consider the favorable stroke/rod angle with a small displacement small block as compared to the huge stroke in my 406, you gain more respect for my motor when I buzz it to 7800. Pretty spooky stuff as that's where the rev limiter is set when I miss a gear. Geez, I gotta get out of this car madness. I could buy a lot of stereo gear for the cost of a broken motor.

Those Brits never did learn how to make a proper oil seal. Everything British leaks oil. Even Rolls Royces need drip pans underneath.

Now *that* sounds like the automotive equivalent of Thomas' audio system! I just hope the system is a little more comfortable and doesn't leave spots on the carpet...(I used to own a stock Spitfire :-)

9000rpm is a hell of alot of rpms out of a small block Chevy! I had a 1961 Austin Healey Bugeye Sprite that had a highly modified 950cc(58 cid.) inline-4 cylinder pushrod engine, that I could coax 8600 rpm out of, before valve float. It made 104hp, which is about 1.8hp per cubic inch. It weighed 990 pounds. Had 4.22 rear gears. It did under 14 sec in the 1/4 mile, and I could beat Corvettes and E-type Jags in stop-light drags. That wasn't the purpose, it was built for H-Production SCCA road racing, and the real strength was in the corners. I used to eat Lotus Elans for lunch. Those were the good old days! Nobody ever expected much from a 1 liter Sprite. Boy, were they surprised.

Albert, Too cool! Let's see, a 9,000 rpm small block chevy in a 1650 lb. car. Hmmm, assuming it could keep the tires planted on the pavement, I would guess about a 10 second flat quarter mile at around 135 mph and top speed? Big time fast....180+? Anyway, it's rare and even though highly modified from factory configuration I can see the value rise you missed. If we would have kept all the cool cars we had when we were younger they would have paid for a modest retirement. Do you think our vinyl will do that?

Here is the trick. I started with a two seater Ferrari GT 212, all aluminum body and wire wheels. When the original 12 cylinder engine spun a crank, the previous owner decided to build a less expensive 301 cubic inch small block Chevy with ported heads and Isky roller camshaft.

Instead of a traditional air cleaner (insufficient space), the engine was fitted with 3 two barrel carbs and velocity stacks sticking into the hood scoop. The headers and exhaust system were all formed from custom bent tubing, no mufflers, just twin collector boxes with dual 2" pipes from collector to the rear bumper. Rev capability and sound was wonderful with the roller cam and lightweight Schiefer flywheel assembly.

I have photographs of it, metallic silver with red interior. It was VERY sparse, no radio, no seat belts, with Plexiglas side and rear windows that did not roll up or down. The seats were little more than frames with a thin sheet of leather over them. The car did not even carry a spare tire. Add to that, it was right hand drive, the flaw in the car that made it uncomfortable for me to enjoy long term.

Still it was fun for the $3600.00 I paid for it. It would be worth a small fortune now.

Albert,
I don't have a clue how somebody can put together a car of that wieght. I know it can be done but I can't do it. Get this, I started out with a car that already had a V8 and weighed 2850 lbs. So, it's got aluminum heads, intake, radiator, fuel cell and wheels. The interior only has two racing seats and the door panels are aluminum although they are also powder coated. It even has a fiberglass hood. So, it weighs 3185 lbs. after all that. For everything I did to lighten it up I had to do two things which made it heavier. Such is the price I paid to make it rigid and safe. I envy that light car. Doesn't take a lot of motor to make 1650 go fast and that's cool. Sounds like Tom's Holy Grail/Lowther combo.

Well, we'll see about the way I think - I've finally got my initial reply from Mr. De Lima, and am proposing to engage in a limited dialog with him about his theory. More later...

Zaikesman, I love the way you think!

Yeah...I see sort of an 'Audiophile Cannonball Run' concept shaping up here...we blitz around the country in stages (trying not to get pulled), with members' houses as individual leg destinations, where we all stop for competitive auditioning of our systems' sound for bonus points, before going out to eat every night...

Talk about a 'power race'... :-)

With Lugnut's car we could cross the country in a matter of hours :-).

I say we all get into Lugnut's car, drive to everyone's home who posted here, and listen for at least one day.

Everyone is welcome to visit my home and audition my single driver speaker. Unfortunately mine requires at least 50 watts to operate and prefers 200.

Lugnut, we should trade stories. I could tell you about my 1650 pound, 301 cubic inch street automobile. Got me into lots of trouble when I was young. Fast quarter mile and good top end. Too bad I sold it in the late 60's. It's current value would fund my retirement.

TWL, try to stay warm with the near sub zero temps banging into your neighborhood. It might be time to fire up that smoky old wood stove.

Hey Z: Discretion is the better part of valor!

Frankly, I hope you come up with something earthshaking. I'll be able to say...."I knew him when he was posting at Agon."

Sincerely,
I remain

Yeah Patrick, I was wondering about that number, whether you'd bored it or what, but I guess either you typed a 9 instead of a 0 or my eyes are going - don't know, 'cause the email's been deleted now! :-)

Twl, I'm actually starting to become glad I've delayed now - some more time to try and digest the implications of the technical appendix at the bottom of the article (which is frankly over my head) has got me beginning to think that maybe the particular inconsistency or incompleteness I thought I detected in the body of the article is answered or addressed in the appendix. I don't know yet, I'm trying to do further research to educate myself some more, but I'm holding off on any accusations of a "smoking gun" for the moment. I haven't gotten a reply from De Lima yet; he's the one I'd really like to chat with right about now, and I don't think I'm gonna turn myself into an EE overnight. :-) But I will say that further consideration has me thinking that one of my assumptions is probably incorrect, and I'm modifying my approach. When I've got some things settled in my mind, I will certainly be happy to discuss both my thought process and my ultimate conclusions with you, but am begging off at present - still thinking, still researching. Regardless, there are still some aspects and implications of both the theory and some statements in the article that I will post about later, independent of whether I decide the theory is likely to be valid or not. Sorry, that's the best I can do right now. :-( But like the song says, we've got all the time in the world, and I'm taking some of it.

Alright Alex, give us your theory. I'm getting tired of waiting for De Lima to respond to your email. My curiosity is getting the better of me.

Maybe we can discuss it while we're waiting for De Lima to respond.

Zaikesman,

It's a '67 and a 406 small block Chevy. It is my garage but neat'n'clean is a sometimes thing!! Thanks for the kind words in your reply email. Regarding the windshield wipers, or lack thereof, I can pop them on easy enough but they lift from the windshield at the track and act like they will be torn off. The hood does the same thing. Being fiberglass it lifts and shakes something awful at trap speed. The Boise area is high desert and rarely rains. It's a very nice climate here if you like mild weather and close access to snow.

Patrick

Chevy II, '66 or '67 I'm guessing, 496 I'm told, plain white and very stealthy-looking, and if that's your garage interior in the photo, one hell of a neat'n'clean well-outfitted shop...

Still no De Lima, I may have to proceed on some assumptions without him, but will give it through tomorrow...

Onhwy61,

When I tool around I don't need any. The car is very quiet. When I race it is loud at wide open throttle (still through the mufflers) but with a helmet and the windows up, which is mandatory, it's so muffled it's like wearing ear plugs. My competitors all have open exhaust. I wear ear protection as a spectator.

Patrick

Lugnut, do you use any sort of hearing protection when tooling around? If so what type? Your car sounds very impressive.

Zaikesman,

Send me an email and I'll send back a photo or two of the car.

What we need here is to line up and have a heads up audio race. Seriously, I wish we could have a small time convention of Audiogon members, perhaps on a regional level. I would be willing to invest some cash to help with renting a room and setting up a members system. We could then A/B as quickly as we could change rooms. I know it's only wishful thinking on my part but the benefits would be huge.

It's obvious that there is more than one way to skin this cat. What's important to me is getting the most bang for the buck.

Clueless, please continue to post. I know that there are some rude folks here sometimes and the same questions get asked over and over. There are quite a few old regulars that have quit participating and I would miss you if you weren't present.

Twl, continue to beat the drum. I know you are onto something that's bigger than most folks can comprehend. I admire the direction you have taken.

Brulee, Unsound, Jctubes, Dekay and others, I enjoy your posts and appreciate the insights you provide that I can't get any other way. I'm not trying to be overly senitmental but just want you guys to know that reading what you write is important to a lot of folks and maybe we don't recognize your contributions enough. I just hope I can occassionally provide a little help to someone.

Happy listening to all,
Patrick

Zaikesman, none other than James Beard. Go figure?

Patrick, is there a URL with a picture posted of your baby (the car, I mean)? And have you ever seen the admittedly obscure 1974 documentary film "Funny Car Summer" (if not, you can look it up on imdb.com)?

Macrojack, everyone prefers gas over electric, but I have to say that I do have a 'soft spot' for microwaves. Maybe that comes from standing too close to one for many years. ;^)

FWIW, no response yet from De Lima. And happy birthday Django!

Learn technique, then transcend technique. Technique not bad per se, but attachment to technique, the power of the mind through its technique, gets in the way eventually. Once that happens, you don't see that it did. Second, attachment to technique is not attachment to technique, but, deeper, is a fear of lack of power of technique. Attachment does not exist without fear of its loss.

What a thread! The collective intelligence of the posters is really something. I've enjoyed this a lot and NO, my tongue is not planted firmly in my cheek. It reminds me of an event in my personal life that has nothing to do with audio but it applies here none-the-less.

I spent several years constructing a car for triple duty. A street car with reasonable manners and killer good looks, a very fast quarter mile drag car and one capable of competing in the Nevada outlaw road races. All of this was to be done on 92 octane gas without nitrous or forced air induction. A change of tires would be allowed for all three types of driving.

While cutting and welding and doing all it takes for the required safety measures as well as the "looks" department I pondered all of the different ways to have the power levels needed and retain the durability demanded by such an engine. I relied heavily on technology developed by others and attempted to really do this honestly. You know, you can hang plates on a race car and install mufflers, but it's still a high maintenance race car.

I went through all the calculations projecting power output and when the motor was finished I engine dyno-ed it and after it was in the car I chassis dyno-ed again since the latter more closely duplicated acceleration in the car. Being in a rather small area here it was impossible to keep the measured results secret. Of course, there was a lot of talk behind my back and most of it was negative.

If you took the advertised power gains of the camshaft, the cylinder heads, the piston design, and all the other bits and pieces that went into this motor it would have satisfied the needs of a top fuel dragster. The computer programs predicted close to 700 horsepower. The dyno said it made 520+ hp and 495 lb/ft of torque. Was this a disappointmnet? Not in the least. It had 80% of it's power available at idle (1200 rpm). Of course, everyone knew what it actually made and my first pass at the drag strip was the talk of the track. When asked what kind of times I would run I only replied that I would run a trap speed of over 120 mph.

There were many cutting remarks made and stupid challenges offered prior to my first pass. Comments such as, "Tim has 650 hp and only goes 114 mph" and "No way, you ain't got enough power, besides, how will you hook on a 10" wide tire?" By the time I did my burnout I was depressed in spite of the confidence I had when I woke up that morning. I was wondering if this was going to be a huge disappointment.

My D.O.T. approved tires were actually little more than slicks with two grooves in them and carried a pressure of 8 lbs. The car is a manual transmission and my calculated launch rpm was 5800 rpm and the shift points were at 6200 rpm. So, I stage, come up against the launch rev limiter and when the lights came down and I released the clutch all I saw was sky. When I shifted (3/4 of a second after launch) I again was looking at sky. Guys, this was the quickest 10 seconds of my life. On a 105 degree day at a track elevation of 3500 ft. I pulled 126 mph. Later in the day as I buzzed the engine beyond the measured shift point the speeds went up. 7200 rpm shift points worked best and I approached 130 mph in 1320 ft.

The insults and the challenges came to a stop and were replaced by oohs and ahhs. When asked why my car was faster than Tim's car with 650 horsepower I replied, "My horses must be bigger than Tim's". For your consideration I offer the following: The class I ran in was comprised solely of trailer queens being full race cars. Mine was the only one driven to the track and back home and it was a small block. Nobody but a a dragster and an altered exceeded my mph.

My point is: math and measurements are important but bench racing is pointless.

Cheers,
Patrick

Probably a good analogy could be drawn between the experience of savoring food and the experience of enjoying music. I'm too lazy to do that but I favor gas cooking over electric or(God forbid) microwave. Does anyone else out there feel the same? Or have you given the matter no thought and just enjoyed your food?

Amen, Clueless. Why is it again you say you generally don't desire to post at length much anymore? :-)

Nicely said JCT:

I hope you were not talking about my statement above when you argue against the idea that "good specs equate to good sound." No one can seriously believe that and certainly not someone (like me) who listens to SETS at least part of the time.

I do believe, as I said above, that "If the measurements do not "add up" to good sound (and they do not) it means we, or at least someone, has to think about them more, not less." (this does not mean I think that all of life, let alone music or electronics, can be reduced to numbers so please no philosophical attacks)

So I agree with Unsound that walking away from engineering, a rather rigorous discipline (of which I am not a member) is walking away from what has made it possible for us to have audio and all of electronics for that matter. Ohm, Faraday, Maxwell, the folks who did the basic works in acoustics (J. Strutt , aka Lord Rayleigh), speakers (Theil/Small etc), Bell Labs and transistors. On and on… all measuremnt/number geeks.

I also agree with Brulee that you can be as into it as anybody without giving numbers/measurements a second thought. Get a good system and plug it in. I guess I disagree with him when he says that he doesn’t understand why anybody is interested.

All the audio-design folk I respect combine real technical knowledge with good ears. It is never an either-or and always the combination of the two. To demand one or the other is in logic the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

You can buy a good system with your ears but you will never design one or even incompetently dabble in it, as I do, with your ears alone. The only way you can dismiss numbers/measurements is if you equate them with marketing specs. This is a very simple headed way to look at them.

A little technical knowledge is also the first defense to the endless marketing hype that infests audio. The hype (at least to my mind) is at least a great a danger as a blind adherence to numbers.

Fittingly, the whole thing reminds me a little of music. Most of the musicians I admire have a strong background in what is essentially a kind of number theory. A part of music can only be fully understood in that way. You can enjoy a fugue if you have never heard of an interval, but you are never going to write one or fully understand it. It is almost impossible to approach some forms of music without coming to terms with this.
( John Coltrane comes to mind) . Of course, music rises above this and yet, in a fundamental way, seems to depend upon it in some way. On the other hand, to equate music with numbers is surely to miss the point. (Least I come across as a musical snob some of my favorite musicians didn’t know a hoot about it. Lightening Hopkins and John Hurt on guitar, for example. The strange thing is that these guys followed very distinct patterns in their playing (using 4ths and 5ths ) without ever understanding it at all. There was a recent article in “Science” magazine that says we are hard wired in this fashion. Who knows?

Cheers
I remain

Well said Clueless!

Jcbtubes, you give me too much credit. I haven't, nor intend in the near future, to learn that much technical stuff. At least not untill there is some sort of major discovery and/or compilation of what is known that would warrant it. In the mean time I welcome what ever knowledge comes my way, with the hope that I can use it. As for me, I'm not interested in the fun of this journey. If such a computer program existed, I'd welcome it. Then there would be more time for the music and with any luck more money for everything else.

Unsound- Don't feel bad. You've got lots of company! "While I'm not there yet, ..." - no one is there yet! It doesn't exist, yet. Will it ever exist? Who knows. In the end, who cares. I for one do not want for the day when one goes down to the local entertainment emporium and orders an audio system pre-selected by a computer because of its synergistic relationship score. What fun is that?

Audio is more about the journey than the destination. Since most of us here don't have the talent to create or even play music, we amuse ourselves with learning about the interplay between various components with the desire to find that elusive combination that transcends mere noise, and allows us a short but spiritual experience of the emotional sublime. You shouldn't be able to find this from some cookie cutter, pre-selected computer output!

Formulas (equations) are used to design the circuits, but the selection of individual subcomponents on the basis of sound is the last area of art for most audio designers. (True innovators, like D.Berning, are in another league!)System synergy has many variables that are often as numerous as the number of potential customers. This is the type of information that you learn, not obtain from a data sheet.

For the record, I'm one of those silly electronic engineers. I'm always amused by those who are not, yet continue to think that if they look hard enough at a sheet of numbers that some revelation will come to them. I'm sorry if that sounds too dismissive. I applaud anyone who actually determines to educate themselves in the requisite math and scientific principles to understand the fundamentals of analog and digital electronics. I'm even more impressed with those who go through this arduous task, and can still find joy and beauty in the music that is reproduced from equipment without resorting to DBT and distortion figures, or worse, to bottom-line sales figures.

Is there a clear, absolute relationship between specs and sound? Currently, only in the most rudimentary areas. As an engineer, I can tell you that we design to meet the specs, or requirements doc, that are usually generated by the marketing department. As such, there are certain trends that, valuable or not, become expected. Many of these expectations can be customer generated or simply marketing tools to help differentiate a product from the competition. After awhile, these can take on a life of their own. Remember the THD wars of the 70s and 80s? Life was simple. You simply picked the component with the lowest THD figures, often below .001%, and the most power. Anyone could do it because it was made easy. Did this actually benefit the quality of the reproduced music?

Though there is quite a bit of misinformation espoused by some on this site, well intentioned of course, there is also a wealth of valuable information. If one wants to learn, just look in the archives and continue to ask questions. Don't dismiss the opportunity to learn from experienced audiophiles when it comes to equipment synergy just because the individual component specs aren't to your or some reviewer's liking.

Again, if your desire to investigate the specs of a component(s) help lead you into the study of the fundamentals of electronics, then more power to you. However, for the rest, I suggest that you go rent the movie Pi, and ponder the value of.

I did not post to anger or attack anyone. This diatribe was simply my opinion on this topic of good specs equate to good sound. Do specs have value? Of course, but they shouldn't be the primary tool that one uses when selecting audio equipment.

Bottom line- use common sense and your ears. If you don't know, ask and then listen. My audio path may not be yours, and that's probably a good thing, as my ears, room, and sonic preferences will likely differ from yours. Above all, enjoy the music!

I've emailed De Lima with a couple of basic questions about his published graphs, asking for a little information which is not provided in his article or graph labels (but should be), so that I don't have to work from any assumptions if I don't have to. I'll continue with my intended post after I (hopefully) get a reply, or amend my intended critique if the answers I get fundamentally change my assumptions about what he purports to have shown. Just want to be on as firm a footing as I can here.

That's good Alex. If you have some further ideas that could be of help in this matter, we are all ears.

Clueless and Twl, I have printed and read through the De Lima paper. Read through it a few times, in fact. You are right, there are actual measurement graphs in there, similar to the types I called for above, that would seem to demonstrate the phenomenon he advocates and that you are talking about.

The paper itself, while stipulating many worthwhile points that I could agree with, did not impress me overall. It had a few inconsistencies that made me question De Lima's rigorousness. I listed these on a piece of paper so I could post about them, but I couldn't get those graphs out of my head. I was reasonably sure that my arguments above were sound, yet here was some empirical evidence to the contrary staring me in the face.

This bothered me all night, and I did not go to sleep, instead turning it over in my head. Finally in the wee hours I quit and decided to take a shower. I should have known - I always do my best thinking (and sometimes songwriting) in the shower. :-)

There I had an epiphany, and I now believe that I can debunk De Lima's paper (or at least seriously call it into question), graphs included. I am not going to post my analysis and critique right now, both because it needs to be a detailed post and I am tired and want to go to sleep, and because I want a little more time to recheck myself in the light of day and make sure I'm not mistaken or being rash - not only because I could always be wrong - but also because if I am right, what I say might carry a bit of reputational consequences.

In the meantime, I encourage anybody reading to use Clueless' link to the article, and consider these questions for themselves. What I am thinking of is not so advanced or anything, and it's quite possible (if I am correct in my assessment) that someone with more technical knowledge than myself would see the flaw I believe I have found in a much quicker time than I did. I will give this hint: the fatal problem area of his argument as I see it (one which I have already generally suggested in my posts above) is given away by a careful logical analysis of what is contained and implied in his graphs and their associated explanatory paragraphs (further hint: you must focus on what he doesn't say as well as what he does). I shall return.

Unsound, I know not to use a 10 watt amp on ESLs. I know that certain tube preamps mated with certain SS amps is not a good idea, or shouldn't even be considered. I understand what you are saying. I probably am the one who should have been more clear. Of course matching equipment that works well together is what seperates one that is tolerable to one that makes music. I guess I haven't made myself clear. I think what Dekay said is all that needs to be said.
"Do what you like" I do what I like!
Onhwy61, I hope I have not offended you with my opinions. I have the highest respect for you. But yes, I do believe the ear/brain is the best measuring device. I guess I should say that it is for me. I did not mean common since should not be used when putting a system together. To make my point simple, if it sounds good, it sounds good.
Gotta go, I think I threw the baby out with the bath water again.

Alex. De Lima has some actual measurement charts on the link that Clueless provided.

Uhm: I have settled in with DH/SET's and I'm a poor boy (no fancy horns for me).

Enough said, do what you like.

above >>To ignore specs because they have yet to give a defintive expression of the final sound is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Amen. If the measurements do not "add up" to good sound it means we, or at least someone, has to think about them more, not less.

Hey, as an added feature here is little video on very rare vinyl.

OOOPS!

hehehehehe.

Sincerely
I remain,

Brulee and Twl to dismiss specs is to dismiss opportunity. I'm sure that the designers of your favored gear used specs to get their desired results and to maintain those results. Ignoring specs makes system matching exhaustive. Using specs one can dismiss gear that won't work together and may actually prevent you from damaging equipment. While I'm not there yet, I hope that one day I can see an actual correlation with specs and sound. At this point in time I merely use them to narrow down choices for system compatablity. To ignore specs because they have yet to give a defintive expression of the final sound is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Said above by Z: "In the real world, everything is a design trade-off"

Hey, that's almost a direct quote from my first post.

Anyway, thanks for taking it in stride and as intended.
I read my post a couple hours after i posted it and thought, ohboy...one line (at least) too many. It's just that a few of you regulars really set the standard for engagement around here.

Cheers
Craig

I remain,

Twl, I appreciate your position regardless of whether or not I personally buy into De Lima's theory. Thanks for taking the time to explicate your thoughts in depth. As you probably know from our past discussions, I have always been curious to get a good audition of a system along the lines of what you promote, but haven't done it so far, and admit to not having made any great efforts to do so (then again, the same thing applies to me with any audio gear - I stay away from the shows completely and the shops as much as I can, and none of my friends are audiophiles, so there you have it...).

As far as the one technical point you raise in the above responses subsequent to my last post: Although I am willing for the time being to take your word about the HF capabilities of the Lowther - or at least its perceived performance (being that un-rolled, wide-dispersion response above a certain point is of debatable necessity) - I don't really believe that this driver could be so unique in terms of its moving mass. I mean, designers and manufacturers of dynamic cone drivers have been expending great effort on reducing driver mass while increasing stiffness (something the Lowther must possess if it is to cover the frequency range it is called upon to do) through applied research and technology for many decades now, the whole world over. I will do some investigation online of this driver, because the technology presumably required for its intended application intrigues me, but will say for the time being that I find it difficult to accept the proposition that it could be so very much lower in mass than many other manufacturers' designs (even if those designs aren't intended to be used full-range).

As far as the electrostat reference we have both made goes, yes, these are much lower in moving mass per area of driver surface than any dynamic design, even a dome tweeter. This is possible because the diaphragm is uniformly driven over its entire surface, so rigidity is not needed, and HF response is not impeded by high moving mass. (I also want to mention that my reservations about the validity of the Doppler-intermodulation theoretical critique of wide-range drivers has as much or more to do with the fact that the eardrum itself is a single-membrane transducer, as it does with microphone physics - I'm just not convinced that the ear/brain is in fact sensitive to this supposed problem as it applies to driver operation.)

Clueless, I am sorry if any of my comments may have offended you, and thanks for the link. They were not intended as an attack, so much as that I personally hate to see what is quite likely a very valid movement in terms of not only providing people with another listening option, but also in serving as a useful check on - and critique of - the status quo, feeling that it must engage in what I perceive to be a black-magic, slight-of-hand pseudo-technical argument in order to bolster its case.

I of course realize that disortion cancellation is an accepted phenomenon in certain circuit designs, but I do not feel there is a direct analogy between balanced/opposing-phase circuits or lines and the SET/single-driver theory. I will read the article you have linked (although I may have read it before, I'm not certain - I know I have read about this in the past, but I can't recall whether it was De Lima himself or another writer[s] citing his [or the same] arguments). In general, I feel it is very easy for a technically literate writer who is so inclined to baffle the masses with speculative theories if they choose. My response is, show me some evidence. I may not be an electrical or acoustical engineer, but I find I can usually rely on my own BS detector to weed out the spurious arguments. In audiophilia, technical competence has never been a guarantee against quackery, even among nice guys. :-)

Again, I'm not questioning anyone's beliefs, to which they are entitled. To me, it's not about belief - if something is plausible, and its effect demonstrable, then the mechanism should be verifiable. Since no one seems to have verified this mechanistic belief, I will go with my instinct that it is not plausible. The proposition that SET/single-driver systems may be the most 'pure', on the other hand, I do not reject on its face at all; I just feel that other, and fairly obvious and well-known, factors could account for that being so, if true. If something in his paper gives me a different perspective, I will post about it here.

At the end of the day, everything we have been talking about here just comes back to the hard reality of the 'audiophile condition', if you will - the fact that there is no, and can never be any, 'perfect' speaker or amplifier design. In the real world, everything is a design trade-off dictated by the laws of physics, and I think we all acknowledge that. It's simply left to us try and pick our poisons based on our experiences and preferences. My own inclinations are pretty conventional: low coloration (even frequency response), wide bandwidth, wide and even dispersion, comfortable headroom, low distortion, accurate transient response with low overhang, etc. I do not lightly dismiss Twl's, or any other careful listener's, positions in favor of simpler systems. I do not know if his or their preferences are a good match for my own, but I do know that they are sincere, and wouldn't be listening to plainly deficient sound reproduction by anyone's standards. I regard myself as still of an open mind, not only because their advocacy leads me to believe that there must be something to it, but mostly because I am cognizant of the reality of the paradigm of trade-offs inherent in any particular engineering approach stipulated above, and that must include the approaches my own system employs.

Brulee, your disregard of measurement data is a very extreme position. There is nothing inherently right/wrong or positive/negative in measurement data, it is simply information to be used (or misused). Furthermore, is there any real difference between information gathered by purely electrical probes or that gathered by biological means. Your ear/brain is just another measurement device. Should it really be given primacy in ever case? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

Brulee, i wish you send this exact post to John Atkinson. He is the proponent of "...good sounding must measure good... otherwise..." You know the outcomes: Kr Enterprises, PS Audio...etc.

Way to go, Brulee!

I don't know or care how any piece of audio gear measures. I don't understand why anyone would care. What would some people do if an amp, pre, or speaker offered no measurements.
Maybe i feel this way because I don't know a thing about electronics. Still, how would a person make a decision about what speakers or electronics to buy if they came without measurments. Could it be possible that they would have to listen to make a decision? My goodness, I can't imagine such a thought. I have been such a fool for all these years because i never once considered how a component or speaker measured. Never again will I buy another speaker, amp, or whatever just because it sounds good.
I am so ashamed that I have considered myself an audiophile all these years. I don't know if I will ever be able to live with myself. I plead for forgiveness for my ignorance. And to think I had the nerve to post on threads.
Hanging my head low, hiding my face. Gonna drink a fifth of rum right now. Unless it doesn't measure the right amount of alcohol, cause it really doesn't matter how it tastes.

Unsound, you're right, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing decision. And I try not to say(although I am guilty of implying) that others should not go in different directions. Heck, if they really like something else, then they should have it. I mean, if I was a pipe organ junkie, and liked to hear it at live cathedral volume levels, I wouldn't have the system that I do. That would be trying to listen to music that struck right at the heart of the weaknesses in my current system.

I'll give you an example. Bishopwill and I used to have a running discussion about the need for deep bass. I stuck to my guns, and when he wanted a set of speakers for his bedroom system, he told me he would try a set of Lowthers because I was so high on them. Now this is a guy that actually gave what I am saying a shot, in his own home. This is the first guy I know about that actually listened instead of making a pre-judgment. I respect that greatly. And you know, he actually liked them alot. He didn't wind up getting them, because the cabinets were too big for the bedroom, but he became aware of what the single driver sound can be. And he liked it alot. And he is an organ music lover who really needs deep bass for the music he likes to listen to. No, the Lowthers didn't do that, but he really appreciated them for what they did do well.Now he knows first hand what this type of speaker can and cannot do. I don't fault him at all for not getting them. He had his reasons that were completely valid.

I'm very glad that you are interested in auditioning a system of this type. It may or may not be for you. But at least you will know what these systems can do. I strongly recommend using a vinyl source for the audition, because these systems can be very revealing, and may pass a little too much of the digital nasties to be palatable. At least that is my opinion.

I know sometimes I come on very strong about certain issues, but I'm not trying to be an S.O.B.

Sometimes it just takes a little extra zest to get people to try something different.

I just felt that I needed to get some of this stuff off my chest, because it was getting to me that people actually think I am listening to a distorted system. Jeez! I don't like distortion any more than the next guy. Euphonic or otherwise. I like it clean, and that's why I felt so compelled to say something about it. My system is clean, man. It is not full of any kind of distortion. It's just as clean as anything out there, and maybe cleaner. I want people to know that they are not moving to a distorted system, just because they select a SET amp or a single driver speaker. I wouldn't have to have said any of this if there hadn't been this movement to "tag" the SET amps with the distortion label. Sorry if I over did it.

I don't think it has to be an all or nothing decision. Power is realitive to system, room, desired volume and of course subjective quality. While Twl probably has a lot more experience than I do, my conclusions are the opposite. Interestingly enough the equipment that I would most like to audition seems to be in the general direction, if not the exact path that he has chosen.

Thanks, Craig! I appreciate your support and participation on this issue. I'm glad you decided to take a look at this thread, and contribute the article that I couldn't find, and your well-placed responses.

Hi guys. Thanks for the responses. Yes, I do get quite carried away at certain times. However, my two or three posts are like a little wind in a hurricane of thoughts to the contrary. I don't expect to really get anywhere with this. The whole market is stacked the other way.

Brulee, I apologize of my last 4 sentences of my other post seemed offensive. I feel that sometimes a little "shock factor" can be useful to stir up people's thought processes.

Alex, regarding my attempt to quantify, while casting aspersions on quantification, that is a valid criticism, but it was an apparently meager attempt to communicate to the measurement people in words and concepts they might relate to. They want to hear hard reasons and even measurements if they can get them, so I gave a concept. I have no doubt that if this theory proves true, that there would be a runaway train of measurement people sacrificing the other needed qualities of the amp and speaker, to get this particular measurement. Sorry, but I do feel that they are hopeless.

I don't promote SETs/Single Drivers to everyone, because they are not for everyone. Some could not abide the certain problems associated with a system like I have. I am very aware of the shortcomings of them, because I live with a system like that every day. I would be the first to say they are not perfect, nor are they even close to perfect.

Regarding the single-driver distortion issue, they are in fact a very low distortion driver. This is due in part to very high magnet strength, extremely low moving mass, and short excursion. This makes the single-driver much more responsive than the typical cone driver, and have lower harmonic distortion than other cone drivers. As far as high frequency reproduction goes, my Lowthers are flat to above 20kHz, so I don't see a rolloff problem there. And they are clearer in the very high frequency than any dome tweeter that I've ever heard. In addition, the hysteresis is very low, due to the things I stated above, and the fact that no crossovers are present in the system. The supposed real weak points of single drivers(excluding deep bass response) is the potential for intermod and doppler distortions, and high frequency dispersion due to beaming. And these are real concerns. I would only say that these things turn out to be less problematic to my ears, than the problems associated with multi-driver systems, which number in the hundreds. For every "fix" you get from increasing the number of drivers, you get 10 more problems. When you try to "fix" those, you get 10 more. It never ends, and you move away from the music. The speaker design becomes a race to meet the expected technical aspects of frequency response, and dispersion, and loses focus of what it was supposed to be in the first place.

I may be highly opinionated and passionate, but I'm not decieved. If multi-drivers really did what they claim to do, then I wouldn't be saying jack-shit about this subject. The fact is that they sacrifice more than they gain. It's a loss-loaded movement. For every gain, there are multiple losses. And the losses are of the most harmful kind. And again it goes back to what they consider important in the design, which is paper specifications that sell speakers to the magazine reading consumer. I'd be willing to bet that very few people that even read this post have ever laid an ear on a good single driver speaker. Except for full range electrostats, and they are also a single driver speaker. People seem to think that they are fine. The only difference is the diaphram shape and size. They are low distortion, high magnetic strength, and very light moving mass, with very low excursion. And they generally have the same problems with very low bass, and wide dispersion, and even intermod.

Now if people are happy with their CD,SS, multi-driver systems, that's great. For them. In my case, I'm not happy with that. I've had that numerous times, and know just exactly what it is. I want a closer interaction with the music than is provided with that kind of system. I have found a way to do that. Would I like to get even better? Sure, and I look for ways that I can improve these things, and make mods, and even look at other roads to do it. I've picked my poison, and I know where the deadly parts are. I can live with these, at this time, until I can find a less deadly poison.

The whole impetus for this tirade I've gone on, is to confront the issue that is frequently being pushed to the fore, that somehow SET amps and single driver speakers are some kind of distortion machines, that "euphonic distortion" fetishists use, and that they just don't compare to the "big time" systems. That claim is wrong, and it is stated over and over on this forum, with nobody refuting it. That is over. I will continue to refute that issue. It is interesting that when SET/Single-driver systems are relegated to the distortion bin, which is fairly common on this board, nobody says anything about it, they just accept it as truth. But, when somebody says that CD systems with big SS amps and multi-driver systems don't cut it, watch out for the tomatoes. Then it is considered intolerant of others' systems. Snobbery. But, what is the implied statement, when the terms "euphonic distortion" and and the like, are used? It is that they somehow know that SET people don't know what "accurate" sound is, and that we are into certain kinds of "inaccuracy" that really isn't as good as their "low measurement" systems are. Is that not snobbery? Of course it is. But it is tolerated because it is the opinion of the masses. When I go the other way, it raises eyebrows. Double standard? You betcha. Then I am asked for "proof", not in terms of musical performance, but in measurement terms. Case closed. They are not interested in musical performance, they are interested in measurements that satisfy their reliance on numbers, and not their ears.

No system is a "one size fits all" system. There is room for many kinds of systems for different people. I only take exception when it is presumed that a good type of system is cast into a "lower" category because of the attitudes that are created by this numbers race. So I gave a little dose of the same medicine to everybody else, so they could experience what it feels like. And the responses were based upon my statements either appearing to be intolerant and snobbish, or not being borne out by measured data. Was this not a predictable set of responses? Of course. I went against the accepted grain of high end thinking. Thus, my premises are met with criticism and said to be unfounded in measurable scientific terms. Perfectly natural and predictable, given the mind-set that pervades high end audio today.

I am inherently a person who doesn't mind "rocking the boat" when I know I have a valid point. I am used to being met with resistance, and it's happened all my life. Some people may read this, and take a look at what I said, and seek out a system like this to listen to. If that happens, I have done my job. As far as the others go, I doubt I'll ever get through to them, and I'll always be considered to be a "fringe element" type to them. That's ok. I like being out on the edge. I've always been bored, when I'm in the middle of the "comfort zone".