Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

IIUC Some loudspeakers use a large capacitor in series with the LF
unit to alter the low frequency behaviour and interaction with the
cabinet effects. I think KEF did this with various speakers, but I
don't know how widespread the practice may be.


I haven't come across this at all, so I don't think the practice can
have been very widespread. Of course, before split power supplies were
common, solid-state power amps had a large capacitor in series with the
output, but that was for DC blocking reasons. I can't imagine why a
loudspeaker manufacturer would deliberately roll off the extreme LF,
unless it was for power-handling reasons at the time when the main
source was LPs and consequently there could be a lot of subsonic energy
due to warps and the like.

KEF did do this with models 101,103 and 105 and probably others. IIRC they
referred to it as a bass loading technique. Surprisingly, the implication
was that it increased the low frequency extension though I don't
understand the mechanism unless there was some resonance going on somehow.

Cheers,

Bob.

--
Bob Latham
Stourbridge, West Midlands

Thanks for that. I used to have a pair of 105s, and very much liked the
101s (much better than LS3/5A, I thought) and 103s, so KEF must have done
something right. I can't understand either how a series capacitance would
increase LF extension except, as you say, by some sort of resonance, perhaps
with the L equivalent component of the enclosure resonance. These KEF
'speakers were all sealed boxes, so there would be a resonance between the
air volume and cone suspension, and cone mass. Clever though!

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
IIUC Some loudspeakers use a large capacitor in series with the LF
unit to alter the low frequency behaviour and interaction with the
cabinet effects. I think KEF did this with various speakers, but I
don't know how widespread the practice may be.

I haven't come across this at all, so I don't think the practice can
have been very widespread. Of course, before split power supplies were
common, solid-state power amps had a large capacitor in series with the
output, but that was for DC blocking reasons. I can't imagine why a
loudspeaker manufacturer would deliberately roll off the extreme LF,
unless it was for power-handling reasons at the time when the main
source was LPs and consequently there could be a lot of subsonic energy
due to warps and the like.
KEF did do this with models 101,103 and 105 and probably others. IIRC they
referred to it as a bass loading technique. Surprisingly, the implication
was that it increased the low frequency extension though I don't
understand the mechanism unless there was some resonance going on somehow.

Cheers,

Bob.

--
Bob Latham
Stourbridge, West Midlands

Thanks for that. I used to have a pair of 105s, and very much liked the
101s (much better than LS3/5A, I thought) and 103s, so KEF must have done
something right. I can't understand either how a series capacitance would
increase LF extension except, as you say, by some sort of resonance, perhaps
with the L equivalent component of the enclosure resonance. These KEF
'speakers were all sealed boxes, so there would be a resonance between the
air volume and cone suspension, and cone mass. Clever though!

A high-Q bass resonance and a series capacitor would give some extra
bass extension but a higher order rolloff, compared to a properly sized,
i.e. larger, box.

--
Eiron.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Rob" wrote in message


Serge Auckland wrote:

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

snip leaving rigid definition part

Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately
as possible without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis
of any frequency means a flat frequency response, with
no sharp peaks or troughs, especially peaks. "As life
like as possible" implies not only a flat response, but
also low distortion and accurate dispersion
characteristics which, when the room acoustics are
included, result in an accurate representation of the
recorded event. The closest approach to the original
sound anyone?

This ignores a fact of life. The phrase "the origional sound" as applied to
recordings is an oxymoron. There is not just one origional sound, but an
infinite number of them. The myth of "the origional sound" is probably
symptomatic of that apparently large body of self-proclaimed experts whose
music listening experiences extend only to recordings. Anybody who has been
to a real live performance should have quickly noticed that sound quality
changes as one changes one's listening position.

In contrast, there is a valid usage of "the origional sound", as applied to
audio components such as amplifiers and recorders. Anything that has a
well-defined input and output, such as an electrical signal or a collection
of them, can be tested for faithfulness to "the original sound".

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not
represent 'lifelike'.

I might be lost. If the accurate rendition is not lifelike (whatever *that*
means) then the original is not lifelike. Is it an equipment fault to
present a not-lifelike recording so that it is not perceived as being
lifelike? I think not. I should add that the process of enhancing a
recording that is not lifelike so that it is perceived as being lifelike is
a delicate art - one that is often impossible to execute. The quaint notion
that the sonic imperfections of an amplifier or record playback systems
could perform this trick of sonic legerdemain with any number of recordings
requires considerable suspension of disbelief.

If someone thinks an oboe sounds
more like an oboe with certain things added or taken away
from the original recorded sound (as opposed to the
performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence
neutral?

Good point. More likely, someone has a remembered experience of listening to
an oboe (more likely a recording of an oboe) somehow imprinted on their
brain. Relevant facts notwithstanding, anything that evokes a similar
emotional response is perceived as being consistent with the reference.

Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as
if it were a larger speaker.

As if speaker size was any sort of reliable indicator of bass performance.

How does this differ from extention?

Well, the phrase bass extension does make some sense, but as defined, "Bass
weight" makes no sense at all. So, they must be different. ;-)

Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily
linearly.

What does linearly mean? Does it mean flat response or does it mean absence
of nonlinear distortion?

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in
space.

Hard to measure, other than in terms of accuracy of other parameters.
Therefore, "soundstaging" is whatever people want it to be.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does
the sound feel it is in the room (if so does it fill
the whole room or sound as if it is confined to within
the speaker listening positions), confined towards the
speakers or eminating from the speakers!

This is primarily a function of the room, together with
the dispersion characteristics of the loudspeakers.

It could be a synonym for imaging. It should be synonym for imaging, but
proliferating the terminology is a common tactic for making nonsense to make
sense.

Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to
remedy. I do find that valve amplification and a vinyl
source create (recreate?!) a sense of space, making sound
more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Smiley = joke. yes, the idea that the random corruptions of the audio signal
associated with modern tubed gear and any vinyl playback equipment would
make things categorically sound better is indeed a joke.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

In article , Serge Auckland
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
Of course, the phrase "too dead" is a subjective one, and I agree with
toy
in that I prefer to listen to music in a room that tends toward the "dead"
rather than "live". I've never got on terribly well with the LEDE concept
(Live End Dead End) for listening rooms, I've always preferred a room
that
tends towards "dead" but one can still carry on normal conversation, and
has
a "normal" feel. What that means in actual RT and the frequency
distribution
of that RT I don't know, as I haven't measured many rooms. The IEC
standard
listening rooms I've been in have sounded "right", as have the radio
studios
built to the old



IBA Code of Practice.

Is that online anywhere?...

--
Tony Sayer


Not that I know of. I have a partial set of the IBA Technical Review
booklets. Book 2 has the CoP for TV and ILR studios.

If anyone's interested, I can scan the relevant Radio Studio pages and post
them


Be interesting .. but only when U have the time to do it!....
S.



--
Tony Sayer

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote



Smiley = joke. yes, the idea that the random corruptions of the audio
signal associated with modern tubed gear and any vinyl playback equipment
would make things categorically sound better is indeed a joke.


Yet, that they most categorically *do* is one of the Great Mysteries Of The
Modern Age....

:-)

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Keith G wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Smiley = joke. yes, the idea that the random corruptions of the audio
signal associated with modern tubed gear and any vinyl playback equipment
would make things categorically sound better is indeed a joke.

Yet, that they most categorically *do* is one of the Great Mysteries Of The
Modern Age....

In your mind they do, it's one of the Great Mysteries Of The Stone Age....

Seriously, tube 'enhancement' doesn't work for everything by a long way.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Smiley = joke. yes, the idea that the random corruptions of the audio
signal associated with modern tubed gear and any vinyl playback
equipment
would make things categorically sound better is indeed a joke.

Yet, that they most categorically *do* is one of the Great Mysteries Of
The
Modern Age....

In your mind they do, it's one of the Great Mysteries Of The Stone
Age....



Are you another one *in denial*?

In case you are not aware, you can very easily buy a *brand spanking new*
valve amp, record player and LPs to play on them....



Seriously, tube 'enhancement' doesn't work for everything by a long way.


I don't see valves as 'enhancement' myself, but accepting that you do, name
one thing they don't work for - in a strictly audio context, of course...

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Smiley = joke. yes, the idea that the random corruptions of the audio
signal associated with modern tubed gear and any vinyl playback
equipment would make things categorically sound better is indeed a joke.


Yet, that they most categorically *do* is one of the Great Mysteries Of
The Modern Age....

In your mind they do, it's one of the Great Mysteries Of The Stone
Age....

Are you another one *in denial*?

In case you are not aware, you can very easily buy a *brand spanking new*
valve amp, record player and LPs to play on them....

I'd rather avoid the distortion of the valves and the sheer inconvenience of
the LPs never mind the scratches, pops, rumble, hiss, sloppy frequency response
etc.

I do have a Garrard 401 and Ortofon arm btw. It hasn't seen serious use in
around 20 years.


Seriously, tube 'enhancement' doesn't work for everything by a long way.

I don't see valves as 'enhancement' myself,

They're used as a 'special effect' mostly in music recording.


but accepting that you do, name
one thing they don't work for - in a strictly audio context, of course...

Any form of highly detailed music. They 'muzz it up'.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Smiley = joke. yes, the idea that the random corruptions of the
audio
signal associated with modern tubed gear and any vinyl playback
equipment would make things categorically sound better is indeed a
joke.


Yet, that they most categorically *do* is one of the Great Mysteries
Of
The Modern Age....

In your mind they do, it's one of the Great Mysteries Of The Stone
Age....

Are you another one *in denial*?

In case you are not aware, you can very easily buy a *brand spanking new*
valve amp, record player and LPs to play on them....

I'd rather avoid the distortion of the valves and the sheer inconvenience
of
the LPs never mind the scratches, pops, rumble, hiss, sloppy frequency
response
etc.



You forgot the *boiled cabbage smell*....

:-)



I do have a Garrard 401 and Ortofon arm btw. It hasn't seen serious use in
around 20 years.


Hardly surprising, given the views expressed above - maybe it's needs the
bearing looking at or greasing?



Seriously, tube 'enhancement' doesn't work for everything by a long
way.

I don't see valves as 'enhancement' myself,

They're used as a 'special effect' mostly in music recording.


You've been paying too much attention to Arny....



but accepting that you do, name
one thing they don't work for - in a strictly audio context, of course...

Any form of highly detailed music. They 'muzz it up'.


??

Get someone to sort your kit out, fit a new needle, clean your records up
and then see if they're muzzy! (Unless they've already been damaged, of
course!) IME, vinyl is easily capable of *shattering clarity*, particularly
on valve kit, compared with the usual *haze* (blurriness, my partner calls
it) you get on digital/SS stuff!

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

They're [valves] used as a 'special effect' mostly in music recording.

You've been paying too much attention to Arny....

No, I'm 'paying too much attention' - LOL - to the equipment I see in the 'toy
racks' in studios.

How many serious recording studios are you familiar with ? Studios like AIR for
example.

Quite seriously are you not aware that's what they typically use valves for ?
They are intentionally used for their colourations when so desired. Otherwise
they are kept WELL out of the signal chain.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Keith G wrote:

Get someone to sort your kit out, fit a new needle, clean your records up
and then see if they're muzzy! (Unless they've already been damaged, of
course!) IME, vinyl is easily capable of *shattering clarity*, particularly
on valve kit, compared with the usual *haze* (blurriness, my partner calls
it) you get on digital/SS stuff!

Most of my records are shagged from being played loads in the real world
including being dragged out to performances in my DJ days. I well recall they
weren't that good even when brand new. I vaguely recall having to return some
several times before receiving an acceptable pressing.

CDs are a total joy in comparison.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:

In case you are not aware, you can very easily buy a *brand spanking new*
valve amp, record player and LPs to play on them....

I'd rather avoid the distortion of the valves and the sheer inconvenience
of the LPs never mind the scratches, pops, rumble, hiss, sloppy frequency
response etc.

You forgot the *boiled cabbage smell*....

:-)

I never encountered any boiled cabage smell from any of the above. 'Hot' smells
like burning for sure but no cabbage.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Most of my records are shagged from being played loads in the real world
including being dragged out to performances in my DJ days. I well recall
they
weren't that good even when brand new. I vaguely recall having to return
some
several times before receiving an acceptable pressing.

CDs are a total joy in comparison.

I can relate to that.

I got so fed up with returning faulty LPs to the shop back in the late
'70s/early '80s, only to exchange one set of faults for another, that I
vitually gave up buying them and instead recorded live music from FM radio
on my Revox. Despite the problems of trying to get a good signal some 60
miles from Wrotham the resulting tapes were far more of a pleasure to listen
to than most LPs were.

When CDs became available it was a real pleasure to be able to buy recorded
music again. Not only were CDs devoid of clicks, thumps and whooshes, the
basic quality was so much better too. CDs have a clarity to the sound that
beats even the best LPs.

David.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

David Looser wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Most of my records are shagged from being played loads in the real world
including being dragged out to performances in my DJ days. I well recall
they weren't that good even when brand new. I vaguely recall having to
return
some several times before receiving an acceptable pressing.

CDs are a total joy in comparison.

I can relate to that.

I got so fed up with returning faulty LPs to the shop back in the late
'70s/early '80s, only to exchange one set of faults for another, that I
vitually gave up buying them and instead recorded live music from FM radio
on my Revox. Despite the problems of trying to get a good signal some 60
miles from Wrotham the resulting tapes were far more of a pleasure to listen
to than most LPs were.

When CDs became available it was a real pleasure to be able to buy recorded
music again. Not only were CDs devoid of clicks, thumps and whooshes, the
basic quality was so much better too. CDs have a clarity to the sound that
beats even the best LPs.

Absolutely.

I can only imagine LPs being of interest to mostly somewhat deaf people these
days.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


David Looser wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Most of my records are shagged from being played loads in the real
world
including being dragged out to performances in my DJ days. I well
recall
they weren't that good even when brand new. I vaguely recall having to
return
some several times before receiving an acceptable pressing.

CDs are a total joy in comparison.

I can relate to that.

I got so fed up with returning faulty LPs to the shop back in the late
'70s/early '80s, only to exchange one set of faults for another, that I
vitually gave up buying them and instead recorded live music from FM
radio
on my Revox. Despite the problems of trying to get a good signal some 60
miles from Wrotham the resulting tapes were far more of a pleasure to
listen
to than most LPs were.

When CDs became available it was a real pleasure to be able to buy
recorded
music again. Not only were CDs devoid of clicks, thumps and whooshes, the
basic quality was so much better too. CDs have a clarity to the sound
that
beats even the best LPs.

Absolutely.

I can only imagine LPs being of interest to mostly somewhat deaf people
these
days.

Graham

Or, as in my case, as a bit of fun, nostalgia perhaps. The above story of
recording FM was almost exactly my experience, only I used a carefully
calibrated Nakamachi 482Z, rather than a Revox. LPs used to frustrate me
intensely, and CDs were the answer to all my desires (well, some of them
anyway) at the time. Now, almost 25 years later, I'm enjoying LPs again. I
can now put up with the clicks, bangs etc etc because I have a clean
unsullied source (CDs) whenever I want it. I find it an intellectual
challenge to get half-decent sounds from LPs, knowing that when I just want
to listen to music, I have my CDs. Fortunately, my tastes in music (mostly
classical and Jazz) means that I can still buy CDs that haven't been
compressed excessively or clipped. However, I make sure any blues/classic
rock CDs I might buy haven't been remastered since 1995.

I now have four turntables and approach playing LPs in the same spirit as
driving vintage cars, old mechanical wrist watches or fountain pens (of
which I also have several). LPs from Charity Shops and car boot sales also
allow me to discover new music at bargain prices. It's surprising how well
old LPs clean up with a vacuum Record Cleaning Machine.

Some people seem actually to prefer vinyl to CD, I don't, but can still have
fun with my LPs.

S


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

Or, as in my case, as a bit of fun, nostalgia perhaps. The above story of
recording FM was almost exactly my experience, only I used a carefully
calibrated Nakamachi 482Z, rather than a Revox. LPs used to frustrate me
intensely, and CDs were the answer to all my desires (well, some of them
anyway) at the time. Now, almost 25 years later, I'm enjoying LPs again. I
can now put up with the clicks, bangs etc etc because I have a clean
unsullied source (CDs) whenever I want it. I find it an intellectual
challenge to get half-decent sounds from LPs, knowing that when I just
want to listen to music, I have my CDs. Fortunately, my tastes in music
(mostly classical and Jazz) means that I can still buy CDs that haven't
been compressed excessively or clipped. However, I make sure any
blues/classic rock CDs I might buy haven't been remastered since 1995.

I now have four turntables and approach playing LPs in the same spirit as
driving vintage cars, old mechanical wrist watches or fountain pens (of
which I also have several). LPs from Charity Shops and car boot sales also
allow me to discover new music at bargain prices. It's surprising how well
old LPs clean up with a vacuum Record Cleaning Machine.

Some people seem actually to prefer vinyl to CD, I don't, but can still
have fun with my LPs.

Like you I am now playing LPs again. It started when my wife threatened to
get rid of my LP collection away since I never played them, so I started
copying some of them to CDR and found that I quite enjoyed doing that,
particularly trying to get rid of as many clicks etc as possible without
damaging the sound. And again like you I like vintage technology, I have a
1950s Bush TV22 in my den which I sometimes fire up so that I can watch TV
in wonderful 405-line monochrome, though I don't try to pretend that it's
better than a modern colour TV!

David.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

In article , Serge Auckland
scribeth thus
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


David Looser wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Most of my records are shagged from being played loads in the real
world
including being dragged out to performances in my DJ days. I well
recall
they weren't that good even when brand new. I vaguely recall having to
return
some several times before receiving an acceptable pressing.

CDs are a total joy in comparison.

I can relate to that.

I got so fed up with returning faulty LPs to the shop back in the late
'70s/early '80s, only to exchange one set of faults for another, that I
vitually gave up buying them and instead recorded live music from FM
radio
on my Revox. Despite the problems of trying to get a good signal some 60
miles from Wrotham the resulting tapes were far more of a pleasure to
listen
to than most LPs were.

When CDs became available it was a real pleasure to be able to buy
recorded
music again. Not only were CDs devoid of clicks, thumps and whooshes, the
basic quality was so much better too. CDs have a clarity to the sound
that
beats even the best LPs.

Absolutely.

I can only imagine LPs being of interest to mostly somewhat deaf people
these
days.

Graham

Or, as in my case, as a bit of fun, nostalgia perhaps. The above story of
recording FM was almost exactly my experience, only I used a carefully
calibrated Nakamachi 482Z, rather than a Revox. LPs used to frustrate me
intensely, and CDs were the answer to all my desires (well, some of them
anyway) at the time. Now, almost 25 years later, I'm enjoying LPs again. I
can now put up with the clicks, bangs etc etc because I have a clean
unsullied source (CDs) whenever I want it. I find it an intellectual
challenge to get half-decent sounds from LPs, knowing that when I just want
to listen to music, I have my CDs. Fortunately, my tastes in music (mostly
classical and Jazz) means that I can still buy CDs that haven't been
compressed excessively or clipped. However, I make sure any blues/classic
rock CDs I might buy haven't been remastered since 1995.



I now have four turntables

You err... into mixing and R&B and all that fangled stuff;?...

--
Tony Sayer

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

Or, as in my case, as a bit of fun, nostalgia perhaps. The above story of
recording FM was almost exactly my experience, only I used a carefully
calibrated Nakamachi 482Z, rather than a Revox. LPs used to frustrate me
intensely, and CDs were the answer to all my desires (well, some of them
anyway) at the time. Now, almost 25 years later, I'm enjoying LPs again. I
can now put up with the clicks, bangs etc etc because I have a clean
unsullied source (CDs) whenever I want it. I find it an intellectual
challenge to get half-decent sounds from LPs, knowing that when I just
want to listen to music, I have my CDs. Fortunately, my tastes in music
(mostly classical and Jazz) means that I can still buy CDs that haven't
been compressed excessively or clipped. However, I make sure any
blues/classic rock CDs I might buy haven't been remastered since 1995.

I now have four turntables and approach playing LPs in the same spirit as
driving vintage cars, old mechanical wrist watches or fountain pens (of
which I also have several). LPs from Charity Shops and car boot sales also
allow me to discover new music at bargain prices. It's surprising how well
old LPs clean up with a vacuum Record Cleaning Machine.

Some people seem actually to prefer vinyl to CD, I don't, but can still
have fun with my LPs.

Like you I am now playing LPs again. It started when my wife threatened to
get rid of my LP collection away since I never played them, so I started
copying some of them to CDR and found that I quite enjoyed doing that,
particularly trying to get rid of as many clicks etc as possible without
damaging the sound. And again like you I like vintage technology, I have a
1950s Bush TV22 in my den which I sometimes fire up so that I can watch TV
in wonderful 405-line monochrome, though I don't try to pretend that it's
better than a modern colour TV!

You manage to pick up an old 405 line TX then?.

And standards converter;?...

David.



--
Tony Sayer

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

I can only imagine LPs being of interest to mostly somewhat deaf people
these
days.


Pardon?

Steve

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Serge Auckland
scribeth thus
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


David Looser wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Most of my records are shagged from being played loads in the real
world
including being dragged out to performances in my DJ days. I well
recall
they weren't that good even when brand new. I vaguely recall having
to
return
some several times before receiving an acceptable pressing.

CDs are a total joy in comparison.

I can relate to that.

I got so fed up with returning faulty LPs to the shop back in the late
'70s/early '80s, only to exchange one set of faults for another, that I
vitually gave up buying them and instead recorded live music from FM
radio
on my Revox. Despite the problems of trying to get a good signal some
60
miles from Wrotham the resulting tapes were far more of a pleasure to
listen
to than most LPs were.

When CDs became available it was a real pleasure to be able to buy
recorded
music again. Not only were CDs devoid of clicks, thumps and whooshes,
the
basic quality was so much better too. CDs have a clarity to the sound
that
beats even the best LPs.

Absolutely.

I can only imagine LPs being of interest to mostly somewhat deaf people
these
days.

Graham

Or, as in my case, as a bit of fun, nostalgia perhaps. The above story of
recording FM was almost exactly my experience, only I used a carefully
calibrated Nakamachi 482Z, rather than a Revox. LPs used to frustrate me
intensely, and CDs were the answer to all my desires (well, some of them
anyway) at the time. Now, almost 25 years later, I'm enjoying LPs again. I
can now put up with the clicks, bangs etc etc because I have a clean
unsullied source (CDs) whenever I want it. I find it an intellectual
challenge to get half-decent sounds from LPs, knowing that when I just
want
to listen to music, I have my CDs. Fortunately, my tastes in music (mostly
classical and Jazz) means that I can still buy CDs that haven't been
compressed excessively or clipped. However, I make sure any blues/classic
rock CDs I might buy haven't been remastered since 1995.



I now have four turntables

You err... into mixing and R&B and all that fangled stuff;?...

--
Tony Sayer

No, and as far as I'm concerned The Who were "Maximum R&B" not these
screaming **** that seem to be what passes for R&B these days.

I just like old turntables. I now have an AEG TRS9000 with Audio Technica
AT33ML cartridge, an EMT 948 with EMT TSD15 vdh cartridge, a GL75 with
Goldring 1042 cartridge, and my christmas present to myself, a Garrard 401
with SME 3009 and Shure V15III with brand new original Micro-Ridge stylus.
There's a story to the 401.... When I went to University in 1968, my mother
promised me a 401. However, as I had a very draughty convertible Hillman
Minx, and she thought a sheepskin coat would make much better use of the
money than a 401, so she bought me that instead. I have to say, that she was
probably right, the coat was a lot warmer than a 401, but then, you can't
play records on a coat, and that was probably more important to me as a
student. It's taken me almost 40 years to get the 401.

I also have a selection of Parker and Conway-Stewart fountain pens and a
number of Roamer and Eterna watches which I'm rather fond of. However, for
everyday writing a Quill ball-point pen does the job and for telling the
time, my Junghans radio-watch is infinitely more accurate than any of the
mechanical watches. Bit like CD really.....

S


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

CDs have a clarity to the sound that beats even the best LPs.

David.


In most I would agree. Some CDs are remarkably better, it's amazing what you
can hear on some compared to the vinyl equivalent. For me tho' clarity alone
does not make CD a prefered format.

As much as I play CDs now I still find vinyl very alluring & involving. A
good recording can have me almost mesmerized.

Steve

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:33:30 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

, I have a
1950s Bush TV22 in my den which I sometimes fire up so that I can watch TV
in wonderful 405-line monochrome, though I don't try to pretend that it's
better than a modern colour TV!

In what country is that? 405-line transmissions were switched off
over 20 years ago in the UK!

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Serge Auckland wrote:

I just like old turntables. I now have an AEG TRS9000 with Audio Technica
AT33ML cartridge, an EMT 948 with EMT TSD15 vdh cartridge, a GL75 with
Goldring 1042 cartridge, and my christmas present to myself, a Garrard 401
with SME 3009 and Shure V15III with brand new original Micro-Ridge stylus.
There's a story to the 401.... When I went to University in 1968, my mother
promised me a 401. However, as I had a very draughty convertible Hillman
Minx, and she thought a sheepskin coat would make much better use of the
money than a 401, so she bought me that instead. I have to say, that she was
probably right, the coat was a lot warmer than a 401, but then, you can't
play records on a coat, and that was probably more important to me as a
student. It's taken me almost 40 years to get the 401.

Funnily enough, my 401 was a Christmas present.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

"David Looser" wrote:

, I have a
1950s Bush TV22 in my den which I sometimes fire up so that I can watch TV
in wonderful 405-line monochrome, though I don't try to pretend that it's
better than a modern colour TV!

In what country is that? 405-line transmissions were switched off
over 20 years ago in the UK!

Might he have an ancient 405 line VTR to go with it ?

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
scribeth thus

I have a
1950s Bush TV22 in my den which I sometimes fire up so that I can watch TV
in wonderful 405-line monochrome, though I don't try to pretend that it's
better than a modern colour TV!

You manage to pick up an old 405 line TX then?.

And standards converter;?...


I built myself a digital line-store standards converter back in the 1980s
after the 405-line transmitter network was switched off. This feeds a
modulator based around a couple of MC1496 multiplier chips (one each for
vision and sound) which operates on Ch1 (45MHz Vision, 41.5MHz sound).

David.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
scribeth thus

I have a
1950s Bush TV22 in my den which I sometimes fire up so that I can watch TV
in wonderful 405-line monochrome, though I don't try to pretend that it's
better than a modern colour TV!

You manage to pick up an old 405 line TX then?.

And standards converter;?...


I built myself a digital line-store standards converter back in the 1980s
after the 405-line transmitter network was switched off. This feeds a
modulator based around a couple of MC1496 multiplier chips (one each for
vision and sound) which operates on Ch1 (45MHz Vision, 41.5MHz sound).

David.

And have you got a "H" type or "X" type aerial on your chimney;?...



--
Tony Sayer

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Fleetie wrote:
I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound
splendid.
What DON'T they sound splendid on? Can you analyse why?
Any pop/rock that sounds edgy/sibilant at the mid/top end - the Castles seem to exaggerate it. Classical sounds superb, on the
other hand, even relatively shrill strings. It's difficult for me to tell whether they're simply showing up bad recordings or
source, or they're 'tuned' that way. Also, when loud, the sound is simply uncomfortable and exaggerates this effect. I wouldn't
say distorted, more 'shouty'. They've taken the place of some Dynaudio Contour 1.1s, which never had these traits - so I'd
conclude the Castles have a tendency towards edgy treble. The bass, while a little uneven at times ('inaccurate'), is plentiful
and enjoyable.

Why did you replace the Dynaudios with Castles? Anything wrong with the
former? What did you do with them?


I've been curious about these particular Castles for a while, with the
driver on top. I thought I'd give them a try, and the price was such
that I can just punt them along if I don't want them. In fact the
Castles have been relegated upstairs, where they sound pretty good, but
it is a bigger room:

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/study

Nothing wrong with the Dynaudios - at all.

Difficult to tell whether they're here to stay. I've found some music sounds astounding, good as I've heard - well recorded pop
(Pink Floyd, say)

OI! GET YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF MY DESERT!
What d'he say?

************* !!!


I do believe he said something along those lines.

Sorry.


No worries :-)


Martin

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

CDs have a clarity to the sound that beats even the best LPs.

David.


In most I would agree. Some CDs are remarkably better, it's amazing what
you can hear on some compared to the vinyl equivalent. For me tho' clarity
alone does not make CD a prefered format.

As much as I play CDs now I still find vinyl very alluring & involving. A
good recording can have me almost mesmerized.


OK, that's an interesting statement - what do you think of these
near-identical clips (one CD, the other vinyl)?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MilesA.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MilesB.mp3


Do you have a clear preference?

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

CDs have a clarity to the sound that beats even the best LPs.

David.


In most I would agree. Some CDs are remarkably better, it's amazing what
you can hear on some compared to the vinyl equivalent. For me tho'
clarity alone does not make CD a prefered format.

As much as I play CDs now I still find vinyl very alluring & involving. A
good recording can have me almost mesmerized.


OK, that's an interesting statement - what do you think of these
near-identical clips (one CD, the other vinyl)?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MilesA.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MilesB.mp3


Do you have a clear preference?


Miles A is a lot cleaner, much lower distortion on the highs, so I assume it
to be the CD. Sounds much nicer to me.Miles B is also a fair bit louder and
sounds compressed in comparison with A. Interestingly, the frequency
spectrum of A cuts off very rapidly at 16k whilst B goes on to 21k. I assume
therefore that A is CD, and the relatively limited bandwidth is a function
of the original tapes, whilt B is vinyl, and the very top is just noise.

S.

http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G" wrote



OK, that's an interesting statement - what do you think of these
near-identical clips (one CD, the other vinyl)?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MilesA.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MilesB.mp3


Do you have a clear preference?


Miles A is a lot cleaner, much lower distortion on the highs, so I assume
it to be the CD. Sounds much nicer to me.Miles B is also a fair bit louder
and sounds compressed in comparison with A. Interestingly, the frequency
spectrum of A cuts off very rapidly at 16k whilst B goes on to 21k. I
assume therefore that A is CD, and the relatively limited bandwidth is a
function of the original tapes, whilt B is vinyl, and the very top is just
noise.


You are right - A is the CD. (I 'normalised' both those clips to -16 dB and
that's what comes out - Gawd knows what's going on in the software!) Also,
the vinyl clip was my first attempt at recording to this (Vista) laptop and
it was a nightmare!

The CD clip exhibits the 'clarity' (lack of noise floor) that is often
associated with CD, but it simply sounds *shouty* to me and the percussion
is brittle when compared with the vinyl. Disregarding *measurements* for
this purpose and using only my ears, once again, I prefer the vinyl (what
new?) by, er, *miles*!! (Oops :-)

Ya pays yer money....

(Except in this case I did for *both* the CD and LP....!! ;-)

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G" wrote



OK, that's an interesting statement - what do you think of these
near-identical clips (one CD, the other vinyl)?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MilesA.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MilesB.mp3


Do you have a clear preference?


Miles A is a lot cleaner, much lower distortion on the highs, so I assume
it to be the CD. Sounds much nicer to me.Miles B is also a fair bit
louder and sounds compressed in comparison with A. Interestingly, the
frequency spectrum of A cuts off very rapidly at 16k whilst B goes on to
21k. I assume therefore that A is CD, and the relatively limited
bandwidth is a function of the original tapes, whilt B is vinyl, and the
very top is just noise.


You are right - A is the CD. (I 'normalised' both those clips to -16 dB
and that's what comes out - Gawd knows what's going on in the software!)
Also, the vinyl clip was my first attempt at recording to this (Vista)
laptop and it was a nightmare!

I think you'll find they were normalised to -1dBFS, at least, that's what my
software shows.


The CD clip exhibits the 'clarity' (lack of noise floor) that is often
associated with CD, but it simply sounds *shouty* to me and the percussion
is brittle when compared with the vinyl. Disregarding *measurements* for
this purpose and using only my ears, once again, I prefer the vinyl (what
new?) by, er, *miles*!! (Oops :-)

Strange isn't it, it's B that sounds "shouty" to me, especially the
roughness with highs.

Ya pays yer money....

(Except in this case I did for *both* the CD and LP....!! ;-)


Indeed.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote


The CD clip exhibits the 'clarity' (lack of noise floor) that is often
associated with CD, but it simply sounds *shouty* to me and the
percussion is brittle when compared with the vinyl. Disregarding
*measurements* for this purpose and using only my ears, once again, I
prefer the vinyl (what new?) by, er, *miles*!! (Oops :-)

Strange isn't it, it's B that sounds "shouty" to me, especially the
roughness with highs.


The bass is also somewhat recessed on the CD version which is what makes it
'shouty' to me, but I've trimmed the clips down:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SmallMilesA.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SmallMilesB.mp3


.....to enable more direct comparisons to be made and, if anything, the CD is
more shouty than ever and completely lacking in 'texture' - by comparison to
the vinyl, which is why I consider CD to be less *natural* and certainly
less 'listenable'!

(I guess one man's 'texture' is another man's *noise*....?? :-)

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Serge Auckland" wrote


The CD clip exhibits the 'clarity' (lack of noise floor) that is often
associated with CD, but it simply sounds *shouty* to me and the
percussion is brittle when compared with the vinyl. Disregarding
*measurements* for this purpose and using only my ears, once again, I
prefer the vinyl (what new?) by, er, *miles*!! (Oops :-)

Strange isn't it, it's B that sounds "shouty" to me, especially the
roughness with highs.


The bass is also somewhat recessed on the CD version which is what makes
it 'shouty' to me, but I've trimmed the clips down:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SmallMilesA.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SmallMilesB.mp3


....to enable more direct comparisons to be made and, if anything, the CD
is more shouty than ever and completely lacking in 'texture' - by
comparison to the vinyl, which is why I consider CD to be less *natural*
and certainly less 'listenable'!

(I guess one man's 'texture' is another man's *noise*....?? :-)


Exactly the other way round for me! A is clean, B is coloured (shouty isn't
a bad way of describing it) I suppose your texture is my coloration. By the
way, what cartridge did you use for the vinyl? I would guess an AT95 or
similar.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Serge Auckland" wrote


The CD clip exhibits the 'clarity' (lack of noise floor) that is often
associated with CD, but it simply sounds *shouty* to me and the
percussion is brittle when compared with the vinyl. Disregarding
*measurements* for this purpose and using only my ears, once again, I
prefer the vinyl (what new?) by, er, *miles*!! (Oops :-)

Strange isn't it, it's B that sounds "shouty" to me, especially the
roughness with highs.


The bass is also somewhat recessed on the CD version which is what makes
it 'shouty' to me, but I've trimmed the clips down:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SmallMilesA.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SmallMilesB.mp3


....to enable more direct comparisons to be made and, if anything, the CD
is more shouty than ever and completely lacking in 'texture' - by
comparison to the vinyl, which is why I consider CD to be less *natural*
and certainly less 'listenable'!

(I guess one man's 'texture' is another man's *noise*....?? :-)


Exactly the other way round for me! A is clean, B is coloured (shouty
isn't a bad way of describing it) I suppose your texture is my coloration.


The 'something added vs. something lacking' dichotomy again? :-)


By the
way, what cartridge did you use for the vinyl? I would guess an AT95 or
similar.


A Goldring Electro II+ which is a high output (2.5 mV) MC with a van den Hul
I stylus. (So, not really!! :-)

(That's after having found a busted wire in the connectors on my other deck,
which was the one I was going to use - and which you've reminded me needs
sorting!)

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Serge Auckland" wrote


The CD clip exhibits the 'clarity' (lack of noise floor) that is often
associated with CD, but it simply sounds *shouty* to me and the
percussion is brittle when compared with the vinyl. Disregarding
*measurements* for this purpose and using only my ears, once again, I
prefer the vinyl (what new?) by, er, *miles*!! (Oops :-)

Strange isn't it, it's B that sounds "shouty" to me, especially the
roughness with highs.


The bass is also somewhat recessed on the CD version which is what makes
it 'shouty' to me, but I've trimmed the clips down:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SmallMilesA.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SmallMilesB.mp3


....to enable more direct comparisons to be made and, if anything, the
CD is more shouty than ever and completely lacking in 'texture' - by
comparison to the vinyl, which is why I consider CD to be less *natural*
and certainly less 'listenable'!

(I guess one man's 'texture' is another man's *noise*....?? :-)


Exactly the other way round for me! A is clean, B is coloured (shouty
isn't a bad way of describing it) I suppose your texture is my
coloration.


The 'something added vs. something lacking' dichotomy again? :-)

Exactly. I find vinyl adds something undesirable, you feel CD lacks
something desirable.



By the
way, what cartridge did you use for the vinyl? I would guess an AT95 or
similar.


A Goldring Electro II+ which is a high output (2.5 mV) MC with a van den
Hul I stylus. (So, not really!! :-)

(That's after having found a busted wire in the connectors on my other
deck, which was the one I was going to use - and which you've reminded me
needs sorting!)

I'm surprised, as the Goldring I have (1042) and my memories of Goldring
G800 series were of quite smooth cartridges. Maybe the disk is well worn, as
I found the loud highs quite rough.

S


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote


The 'something added vs. something lacking' dichotomy again? :-)

Exactly. I find vinyl adds something undesirable, you feel CD lacks
something desirable.


My only problem with CD is they don't hold my attention. I can listen to
them for sounds but, for some strange reason, I don't take them seriously
for music! And it's not like the (far) superior soundstaging of vinyl has
anything to do with it, as I'm often floating about the house when the music
is on and everything gets nicely 'monoed' by the time I hear it!



(That's after having found a busted wire in the connectors on my other
deck, which was the one I was going to use - and which you've reminded me
needs sorting!)


Aha! A timely reminder!!



I'm surprised, as the Goldring I have (1042) and my memories of Goldring
G800 series were of quite smooth cartridges. Maybe the disk is well worn,
as I found the loud highs quite rough.


I didn't get on too well with the G1042 and the only working G800 (ie with a
decent needle) I have is with Shiny Nigel atm - I seem to prefer Shure MMs
and Ortofon MCs, myself! That said, the Goldring is possibly a little too
rare for the work it's doing and I will probably swap it out for an AT110E -
which work superbly well on linear trackers!

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


My only problem with CD is they don't hold my attention. I can listen to
them for sounds but, for some strange reason, I don't take them seriously
for music!

Because you have an emotional attachment to the *idea* of vinyl, because you
like the ritual of cleaning the disc, watching it turn, lowering the stylus
into it etc? Perhaps CDs are simply too easy to play for your liking.

And it's not like the (far) superior soundstaging of vinyl has anything to
do with it,

How do you work that one out? Vinyl has a poor crosstalk figure (typically
around 25-30dB) whilst with CD the crosstalk is as good as the producer of
the recording wants it to be. How does that create "(far) superior
soundstaging" for vinyl?

David.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Bob Latham wrote:

I have to say I do know exactly what keith means here. The most impressive
soundstage or imaging I have ever heard was from an Ortofon MC10 or 20
can't remember which that i owned at one time. I've not heard CD image
like that cartridge did. I bet some will argue that this is due to some
mid band frequency response error and that may be the case, I don't know.
Was lovely though.

Did we have soundstaging or imaging in those days?

--
Eiron.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


My only problem with CD is they don't hold my attention. I can listen to
them for sounds but, for some strange reason, I don't take them seriously
for music!

Because you have an emotional attachment to the *idea* of vinyl, because
you like the ritual of cleaning the disc, watching it turn, lowering the
stylus into it etc? Perhaps CDs are simply too easy to play for your
liking.


Quite possibly all of that!


And it's not like the (far) superior soundstaging of vinyl has anything
to do with it,

How do you work that one out? Vinyl has a poor crosstalk figure (typically
around 25-30dB) whilst with CD the crosstalk is as good as the producer of
the recording wants it to be. How does that create "(far) superior
soundstaging" for vinyl?


No idea - all I know is CDs have virtually no 'soundstaging' at all,
compared with almost all vinyl...??

(Reverb is *not* soundstaging....)

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

And it's not like the (far) superior soundstaging of vinyl has
anything to do with it,

How do you work that one out? Vinyl has a poor crosstalk figure
(typically around 25-30dB) whilst with CD the crosstalk is as good as
the producer of the recording wants it to be. How does that create
"(far) superior soundstaging" for vinyl?

I have to say I do know exactly what keith means here. The most impressive
soundstage or imaging I have ever heard was from an Ortofon MC10 or 20
can't remember which that i owned at one time. I've not heard CD image
like that cartridge did. I bet some will argue that this is due to some
mid band frequency response error and that may be the case, I don't know.
Was lovely though.


Shhh.....

(They don't come up on eBay too often!! ;-)