| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]: I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon- level Rout as you are Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance (underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind. Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know, perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those boomboxes of yours with a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers (ESL) and Which don't have very much in the way of bass ! You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. And you clearly didn't read or understand what I said in the rest of my post, which you stupidly snipped. I repeat the relevant paragraph for your education. When you understand what I'm talking about, come back here and we'll test your knowledge. Here we go: "I might add that as a psychologist I understand perception, including a point about musical perception that electronics engineers (1) have the greatest difficulty in grasping, to wit that the weight of the fundamental is pretty low in reconstructing the frequency in the ear. I demonstrated that the other day with regard to 196Hz on a violin in a letter to Iain Churches which, typically, elicited no discussion because no-one except he and I are interested, and we already know about it. It means that the vaunted "audio range" of the engineers, 20Hz to 20kHz, is a joke at both ends, at the top end because most people never were able to hear that high, at the bottom end because the lowest note on any musical instrument, 16Hz on some organs, is more than adequately produced in *any room of correct length* (and preferably golden ratio proportions) by an amp that goes down to only 32Hz. " Lord Above. I'm always here for you, Poopie, because you are the least of us and therefore need my help more than anyone else. Tell us, Poopie, how long must a room be for say a Quad ESL-63 adequately to reproduce the lowest frequency of which it is capable. It is a simple, straighforward question straight out of a high school science test, so you should be able to give a straighforward answer. You are permitted to go ask for help from your mates. Look forward to your answer. Graham Andre Jute Special tolerance for diplomaed quarterwits at Christmas (1) According to the excellent John Byrns, electronics engineers with experience in designing small radios have long since grasped the point. They're excluded from my strictures. But Poopie Stevenson's response proves my point about electronics engineers in audio in general. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]: I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon- level Rout as you are Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance (underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind. Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know, perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those boomboxes of yours with a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers (ESL) and Which don't have very much in the way of bass ! You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]: I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon- level Rout as you are Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance (underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind. Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know, perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those boomboxes of yours with a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers (ESL) and Which don't have very much in the way of bass ! You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction. You'd need to qualify 'bass light'. If an absolute term then the vast majority of the speakers on the market qualify for that description. The smooth LF response of an electrostatic makes it seem 'bass light' to many used to honking cabinets - but that's a different matter. Electrostatics tend to be more room sensitive too than some 'conventional' designs. -- *Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Eeyore wrote: You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction. You'd need to qualify 'bass light'. The cancellation of low frequencies as a result of their physical construction. Unless you know of an IB electrostatic. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
|
The damping factor and the sound of real music
tony sayer wrote: Eeyore scribeth thus Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]: I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon- level Rout as you are Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance (underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind. Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know, perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those boomboxes of yours with a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers (ESL) and Which don't have very much in the way of bass ! You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's Coloration light you mean;)... Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , Eeyore
wrote: Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). On the ESL63 the resulting LF roll-off is -6dB at about 35 Hz, roughly second order IIRC. This, of course, is the nominal 'free space' value. In the room I use for the main hifi system the last time I measured it was only about -3dB at 30-35Hz. The result does not sound 'bass light' to me. But this will of course depend on the room, etc, and the absence of a box boom may make other speakers seem to have 'more bass'... :-) It may be more significant that the sound pressure level you can get at low frequencies is perhaps more restricted than a good conventional speaker of similar price. But that is a question of sound power, not frequency response. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
|
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: The cancellation of low frequencies as a result of their physical construction. Unless you know of an IB electrostatic. Do you have true infinite baffle moving coil speakers? I doubt it. Of course they will cancel at a certain frequency and below. That's why they are so large. But the cutoff frequency is lower than perhaps most conventional designs - if you set a realistic attenuation as a cutoff. -- *I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
tony sayer wrote: Eeyore scribeth thus The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). So I wonder how I'm hearing that Organ recording I made 't other week?.. You'll still hear it of course. The lower frequencies will simply be attenuated somewhat.. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Eeyore wrote: The cancellation of low frequencies as a result of their physical construction. Unless you know of an IB electrostatic. Do you have true infinite baffle moving coil speakers? I doubt it. My EV Sentry IVs are not only horn loaded but have 100% isolation of the rear radaition. Of course they will cancel at a certain frequency and below. That's why they are so large. But the cutoff frequency is lower than perhaps most conventional designs - if you set a realistic attenuation as a cutoff. IBs don't *have* to be huge to avoid the cancellation issue. Acoustic labyrinth designs like PMCs effectively avoid the problem entirely. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Bob Latham wrote: tony sayer wrote: Eeyore scribeth thus It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's Coloration light you mean;)... Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. Define bass;) The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). So I wonder how I'm hearing that Organ recording I made 't other week?.. Harmonics? Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an open backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on Quad electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz. I'll go along with low coloration but it is well accepted that electro statics of moderate size suffer the two weaknesses of poor l/f extension and lower spl than TEBs, reflex or transmission lines. Of all the speakers made in the world which one is most common to see two pairs stacked together in an attempt to get some extension out of them. Wasn't the guy who started SME famous for having stacked Quads in his listening room? I've heard stacked Quads. Very nice but the owner still eventually added some subs. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Bob Latham wrote:
In article , tony sayer wrote: In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel scribeth thus It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's Coloration light you mean;)... Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. Define bass;) The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). So I wonder how I'm hearing that Organ recording I made 't other week?.. Harmonics? Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an open backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on Quad electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz. http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/model.php...n t=3#details "Axis band limits -6dB at 35Hz (3rd Order)" Not much different to your KEFs. I'll go along with low coloration but it is well accepted that electro statics of moderate size suffer the two weaknesses of poor l/f extension and lower spl than TEBs, reflex or transmission lines. How loud do you need in your lounge? I wouldn't use ESLs for parties but they are adequate for normal domestic use. -- Eiron. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Eiron wrote: How loud do you need in your lounge? I wouldn't use ESLs for parties but they are adequate for normal domestic use. Generally true, yes. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , Bob Latham
wrote: Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an open backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on Quad electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz. -6dB at 35Hz in the open IIRC. It is worth bearing in mind that the ESL generates a force per unit area on the diaphragm. This means that as you go to LF and air can move from front to back more easily, the movement tends to increase for the same applied voltage. So the main problem is that the max level obtainable without arcing or physical limiting drops rapidly as you lower the frequency. Thus the actual roll-off is an engineering trade-off designed to avoid this. FWIW I have a pair of ESL63s in one room with no subm and a pair of 988s in another with a sub. The 988/sub gives more power at LF so suit films and 'noisy' music, but the 63s give similar extension, and give a more natural sound for classical music. However the room acoustics, etc, play a big part in this. I'll go along with low coloration but it is well accepted that electro statics of moderate size suffer the two weaknesses of poor l/f extension and lower spl than TEBs, reflex or transmission lines. Of all the speakers made in the world which one is most common to see two pairs stacked together in an attempt to get some extension out of them. Wasn't the guy who started SME famous for having stacked Quads in his listening room? He had multiple speakers. Partly because the room was large. Partly to give extra dispersion in a controlled manner. The problem wasn't lack of bass IIRC. I doubt you would get much 'extension' of the bass by stacking a pair of Quads as the air can find front-back paths of much the same length as for a single unit, and the pressure interactions just reduce the diaphragm movements to the extent that they interact. But the usual caveat applies, that the room acoustic affects all this. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
On Dec 24, 6:15*am, Eeyore
wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore *wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore *wrote: Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]: I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon- level Rout as you are Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance (underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind. Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know, perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those boomboxes of yours with a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers (ESL) and Which don't have very much in the way of bass ! You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact That's what I said, Poopie, that all the idiots think they know this for a fact because the other idiots on their street corner said so. I prefer to trust my own experience. I actually have several pairs of electrostats, and horns, and IBs, and vented speaks. you complete idiot Oh, I wouldn't claim the perfection of completion. I probably have another thirty years to live, at least part of which I shall spend polishing my idiocy to a gloss that will give apoplectic fits to zero- imagination clowns like you at a hundred paces. that electrostatics are bass light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction. Nope, it's not. First of all, electrostats are not inherently bass light. Like every other speakers, their bass depends on their size and their positioning in the room, not to mention the length of the room. Your *opinion* that they are bass light merely reflects your lack of imagination and perhaps the limitations of your accommodation, and probably a lack of experience with electrostats. First of all, you can put the edge of an ESL right up against the wall, then on one side the wavelength to cancellation becomes the entire length of wall to the other ESL against the opposite wall. Second, you can stack ESL to get any amount of bass that a headbanger like you considers necessary. All it takes is imagination, a certain minimum of engineering skill, and money. If your room is around 45 feet or longer, a pair of ESL to each wall will be good, with each pair together at one edge and angled to put about 12in between the centrepoints, the open end of the triangle hard up against the wall. If the room is long enough put the two triangles of ESL about halfway along the long walls. Try it. Wherever you are in the room, the sound will follow you like the Mona Lisa's eyes, and you will have bass down to Tannoy horn levels (and there is nothing but nothing more authoritative than the bass a big horn attaches to the floor and the walls and the ceiling, to your very skin). If you're high enough on bad dope to want to ruin your ears, stack another pair of ESL on top of each pair already against the wall. It isn't even necessary to angle them because this is just higher quality bass reinforcement than you get with a sub (subs for dipoles and particularly for electrostats are a pain because they can't match that ultra-clean quality of the midrange). Third, a dipole isn't a problem, it is an opportunity. Consider your older type of grand house, built to have an enfilade of rooms all connected to each other in a row, like an art gallery. Now consider the opportunity of a Bessel array, which becomes domestically feasible with ESL in rooms around 40 feet long. All you do to get all the bass of electrostats is to set up a Bessel array of as few as five or seven electrostats in a row in the space between the two rooms, fill in the holes, and Bob's your uncle, for less cost than the 2x or 4x pyramid of drivers per wall (8 or 16 for two rooms) you have two rooms full of point source sound following you wherever you go, including excellent clean bass down to the mid-20s. Don't give me bull about box speakers being able to match that sort of quality; everyone with the slightest experience knows it isn't true. You can learn about Bessel arrays on my netsite at: at:http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/JUTE%20on %20BESSEL.htm Of course, Bessel is an engineering solution for cheapskates wanting quality sound, and ESL are not exactly for cheapskates but, hey, let a thousand flowers bloom. Graham You should put your mind in gear sometime, Poopie. You will find the new experience exhilarating. You might even want to do it again. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
On Dec 24, 10:26*am, Eeyore
wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: *Eeyore wrote: You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction. You'd need to qualify 'bass light'. The cancellation of low frequencies as a result of their physical construction. Unless you know of an IB electrostatic. Graham Aw, hell, Poopie, do you have zero imagination? I've built ESL into the walls between rooms. That makes each room an IB electrostatic. You get *very* convincing bass living *inside* your speakers. Andre Jute Perception is a skill that requires study and careful development over along period of time. Few have it as a natural gift. -- Iain Churches |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
On Dec 24, 11:24*am, Eeyore
wrote: tony sayer wrote: Eeyore *scribeth thus Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore *wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore *wrote: Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]: I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon- level Rout as you are Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance (underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind. Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now.. I know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know, perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those boomboxes of yours with a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers (ESL) and Which don't have very much in the way of bass ! You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's Coloration light you mean;)... Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. It has everything to do with the bass. Because the bass of an electrostat is so clean, you can turn it up higher. Most of what people like you call bass on little box speakers is simply distortion. The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. This is the nonsense of someone who doesn't have his mind in gear, who has always simply accepted the lowest common denominator cheap **** the mass marketers peddle. Yo, Poopie, open your ears and eyes: the wall is the electrostat's baffle: you just put the thin edge hard up against the wall. Or you build the electrostat into the wall between two rooms. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). But, as with every other loudspeaker, your argument simply resolves to the question of "How much does the customer wish to pay for the best sound?" If he truly wants the best, he simply buys the biggest Quad electrostats, and for more of that sound, he buys more of them to stack, and for even more, he breaks a wall out between two rooms in his house. Graham It's simple when you define the problem correctly, see, Poopie? Andre Jute Thumbs well clear of the bricks |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
On Dec 24, 12:13*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: Eeyore *scribeth thus Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore *wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore *wrote: Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]: I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon- level Rout as you are Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance (underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind. Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know, perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those boomboxes of yours with a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers (ESL) and Which don't have very much in the way of bass ! You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's Coloration light you mean;)... Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. Define bass;) The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). So I wonder how I'm hearing that Organ recording I made 't other week?.. Humm..... Graham -- Tony Sayer This is probably episode 48754 in The Continuing Saga of the Fruitless Efforts of an Entire Hobbyist Community to Educate Poopie Stevenson. It started when Poopie interjected himself into a lighthearted conversation between Patrick Turner and me about damping factors in big transmitting tube amps. The key paragraph in my original letter which refers to what you hear from the organ is the one starting "I might add that as a psychologist I understand perception". ****** Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]: I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon- level Rout as you are Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance (underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind. Graham Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know, perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those boomboxes of yours with a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers (ESL) and b) buy or build a pair of horns with Lowther driver and make my HWAF mods to them, which are simple enough even for your limited dexterity to achieve. You can see here how (relatively) simple it can be if you start out with the factory-sawn wood: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg If QUAD ESL are beyond your budget, and my T91 HWAF Lowther horns beyond your woodworking skills or budget, you might consider that it is not difficult to align a speaker to whatever bass is required and to match it the DF of the amp. My Impresario speaker at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg can be built for under £250 per pair, are simple straightsided boxes with only one brace the same size as a top or bottom panel, therefore can be built even by the tenthumbed, and work with an inexpensive SE amp for which I also provide a design, my SEntry amp using trioded EL34, a cheap taste of Nirvana for those on student budgets: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/Jute-EL34-SEntry.jpg I might add that as a psychologist I understand perception, including a point about musical perception that electronics engineers have the greatest difficulty in grasping, to wit that the weight of the fundamental is pretty low in reconstructing the frequency in the ear. I demonstrated that the other day with regard to 196Hz on a violin in a letter to Iain Churches which, typically, elicited no discussion because no-one except he and I are interested, and we already know about it. It means that the vaunted "audio range" of the engineers, 20Hz to 20kHz, is a joke at both ends, at the top end because most people never were able to hear that high, at the bottom end because the lowest note on any musical instrument, 16Hz on some organs, is more than adequately produced in *any room of correct length* (and preferably golden ratio proportions) by an amp that goes down to only 32Hz. That is one reason why my T39 KISS Amp http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...trafi-crct.jpg is rolled off at 32Hz. (The other reason for rolling off an amp for use with horns precisely right, or on the high side of precisely right if you cannot achieve precision, is that a horn unloads the driver right suddenly under Fs and you don't want the cone flapping around pointlessly, a tricky special-instance consideration with horns). So, to summarize, no "phoney low end boost" chez Jute (except for when I deliberately do it as a joke, as for instance on my "Christmas Pipes" for playing Gregorian Chant with *extra ambiance*). Quite the contrary. I have put in the thought and spent the money to match my amps and rooms precisely to the best speakers I could buy or build. It is a method you might consider seriously now that you have outgrown boomboxes, if indeed you have. I make no moral judgement about vented speakers, you understand; I am merely more interested in making the music sound like the concert hall than in the sound in isolation. Andre Jute For more visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review ***** |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Eeyore wrote: You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction. You'd need to qualify 'bass light'. The cancellation of low frequencies as a result of their physical construction. Unless you know of an IB electrostatic. Aw, hell, Poopie, do you have zero imagination? I've built ESL into the walls between rooms. That makes each room an IB electrostatic. You get *very* convincing bass living *inside* your speakers. That's not very practical for most people. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. It has everything to do with the bass. Because the bass of an electrostat is so clean, you can turn it up higher. And then they arc ! Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote: Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an open backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on Quad electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz. IIRC with the '57s 42 Hz springs to mind. Low enough for the lowest fundamental from most traditional musical instruments except for some organs and bass drums. FWIW what most thing of as deep bass is nothing of the sort but centred around 100 Hz. -- *Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , Bob Latham bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus In article , Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Eeyore wrote: On the ESL63 the resulting LF roll-off is -6dB at about 35 Hz, roughly second order IIRC. This, of course, is the nominal 'free space' value. In the room I use for the main hifi system the last time I measured it was only about -3dB at 30-35Hz. The result does not sound 'bass light' to me. But this will of course depend on the room, etc, and the absence of a box boom may make other speakers seem to have 'more bass'... :-) It may be more significant that the sound pressure level you can get at low frequencies is perhaps more restricted than a good conventional speaker of similar price. But that is a question of sound power, not frequency response. In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57 variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered useless? Cheers, Bob. Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said the point source will be sodded up.... -- Tony Sayer |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , Bob Latham bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus In article , tony sayer wrote: In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel scribeth thus It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's Coloration light you mean;)... Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. Define bass;) The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). So I wonder how I'm hearing that Organ recording I made 't other week?.. Harmonics? Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an open backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on Quad electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz. I'll go along with low coloration but it is well accepted that electro statics of moderate size suffer the two weaknesses of poor l/f extension and lower spl than TEBs, reflex or transmission lines. Of all the speakers made in the world which one is most common to see two pairs stacked together in an attempt to get some extension out of them. Wasn't the guy who started SME famous for having stacked Quads in his listening room? Yes but that was the ESL57 series and quite well that worked, but the modern designs are sufficient for purpose if you want to hear what really went on;)... For making -pleasant sounds- I've got some boxed speakers in another room... -- Tony Sayer |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , Bob Latham bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus In article , Eiron wrote: Bob Latham wrote: In article , tony sayer wrote: Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an open backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on Quad electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz. http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/model.php...id=1&conten t =3#details "Axis band limits -6dB at 35Hz (3rd Order)" Not much different to your KEFs. Oh I think they are different. Its not only the roll off, its also how much spl they can provide that gives the overall impression of bass I think. Certainly, I found Quads (admittedly not recent) a bit thin and most surprisingly to me a bit dull too though I'm sure they don't measure badly at the top. Yes of course .. chose your sound and flavour;!... I'll go along with low coloration but it is well accepted that electro statics of moderate size suffer the two weaknesses of poor l/f extension and lower spl than TEBs, reflex or transmission lines. How loud do you need in your lounge? I wouldn't use ESLs for parties but they are adequate for normal domestic use. I don't think I could agree with that for some types of music but I could for others. Cheers, Bob. -- Tony Sayer |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
|
The damping factor and the sound of real music
|
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article ,
tony sayer wrote: In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57 variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered useless? Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said the point source will be sodded up.... I've oft wondered about that. My actual experience of electrostatics is limited in depth to the original Quad design. And those had perhaps the most critical sweet spot of any speaker, but when in it had excellent imaging. I never did have an opportunity to live with a stacked set up to really decide how well it worked. -- *There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , Bob Latham
wrote: In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57 variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered useless? Pass. :-) I suspect it would be quite difficult to get improved results simply by 'stacking' sets of 63s, but would depend even more than usual on the predictable factors like room acoustics, etc. Not something I have ever tried, of felt the urge to try! ;- The late owner of SME did apparently get good results using an array of 63s in a large room. I think he did more than simply stack a pair, and probably spent a lot of time and effort on twiddling with the arrangements to get the results he wanted. I think he deliberately aimed some pairs well away from the listener direction to get a controlled added 'ambience', etc. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
On Dec 26, 12:49 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , tony sayer wrote: In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57 variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered useless? Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said the point source will be sodded up.... I've oft wondered about that. My actual experience of electrostatics is limited in depth to the original Quad design. And those had perhaps the most critical sweet spot of any speaker, but when in it had excellent imaging. I never did have an opportunity to live with a stacked set up to really decide how well it worked. Well, I had stacked ESL57 for years, and perhaps everyone should experience them once but stacks are not the end-all and be-all of stats; I'm just explaining to Poopie how it is done with the round- form diaphraghms like the ESL-63 because he doesn't appear to have the brains to work it out. The 57 is tricky to stack right; you can as easily muddle your sound as boost its volume. You stack ESL-57 one on top of the other, the top one turned upside down and angled towards the bottom one, the entire assembly pivoted around the joint towards the listening chair, ditto for the assembly on the other side. Each assembly is also angled inwards in relation to the side wall to face the listening chair squarely (line from the listening chair to the radiating face hits it perpendicularly). Now you're looking at four imaginary lines making a pyramid towards the listening chair. It helps to get the four lines the same length if you raise the assembly on each side several feet and tilt it over towards the listening chair. As by now you suspect, stacking ESL57 turns your music into a perfectly lonely pastime; the sweet spot becomes hypercritical in three dimensions. I kept stacked ESL for years because mine was aimed at my work chair in front of my computer, in which I sat in the sweet spot for hours. Visitors to my study had only a partial experience of the music... For years I also had a singleton 57 from some old chappie who read my music column; it came complete with correspondence in Peter Walker's own hand which I still have. Sometimes for months on end I would play just the single 57, and not because I was moving around, quite the contrary: I was sitting at my desk for 16 hours every day grafting away on a big book. I remember that as one of the sweetest musical experiences ever, a really good reason to go mono; that is still my reference of the purest, most angelic sound I ever heard. Soundstaging is really a rather trivial trick, and the only one stereo offers for what is often a very high price in its associated downsides; it is a party trick for "audiophiles" who have no real interest in the enjoyment of music. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
On Dec 26, 12:00*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bob Latham bob@sick- of-spam.invalid scribeth thus In article , * Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Eeyore wrote: On the ESL63 the resulting LF roll-off is -6dB at about 35 Hz, roughly second order IIRC. This, of course, is the nominal 'free space' value. In the room I use for the main hifi system the last time I measured it was only about -3dB at 30-35Hz. The result does not sound 'bass light' to me. But this will of course depend on the room, etc, and the absence of a box boom may make other speakers seem to have 'more bass'... *:-) It may be more significant that the sound pressure level you can get at low frequencies is perhaps more restricted than a good conventional speaker of similar price. But that is a question of sound power, not frequency response. In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57 variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered useless? Cheers, Bob. Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said the point source will be sodded up.... -- Tony Sayer It depends what you're doing whether "the point source will be sodded up". For instance, Bessel is a form of stacking in which the point source, far from being "sodded up" is enhanced. For another, several of the stacking schemes for ESL63 and similar (for which it becomes even less necessary, but I'm just humouring Poopie because it is Christmas) I explained are for very grand or even public rooms, in which a tiny loss in potential quality will not be noticed because no one will sit down to listen for it, and the overwhelming quality of the stats *will* be noticed. For yet another, it is easy to stack the ESL63 and derivatives in pairs so that the point source of one precisely meets the point of origin of the other, which is only notionally possible, and only at one listening point, for any other type of speakers (especially multiple cones!), the upshot being that ESL-63 is probably the most stackable speaker there is... Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
"tony sayer" wrote
Yes but that was the ESL57 series and quite well that worked, but the modern designs are sufficient for purpose if you want to hear what really went on;)... Not according to the "Hi-Fi Choice" article I read in the late 80s. It had a picture of his room, and in it were (at least) 2 pairs of stripped-down (grilles removed) ESL-63s, arranged so that for each channel there were 2 speakers right next to each other, but set at 90 degrees to each other. I forget his name right now but I know it's still somewhere in my memory. Oh yes, "ARA", I think. Alastair Robertson-Aikman or something? Martin -- M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890 Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Andre Jute wrote:
... For yet another, it is easy to stack the ESL63 and derivatives in pairs so that the point source of one precisely meets the point of origin of the other, which is only notionally possible, and only at one listening point, for any other type of speakers (especially multiple cones!), the upshot being that ESL-63 is probably the most stackable speaker there is... Do please elaborate, Andre. We could do with some education today. -- Eiron. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Hey, Jim, this is my thread which I started and shared with UKRA for
edification and laughter. It's a bit mean of you, in this season too, to grab it all for yourself by editing the distribution list, thereby depriving us of your great wisdom and knowledge, especially when you're in agreement with me, thereby affirming your great wisdom and knowledge. On Dec 24, 12:05 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Eeyore wrote: Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has nothing to do with the bass. The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size). On the ESL63 the resulting LF roll-off is -6dB at about 35 Hz, roughly second order IIRC. This, of course, is the nominal 'free space' value. In the room I use for the main hifi system the last time I measured it was only about -3dB at 30-35Hz. The result does not sound 'bass light' to me. But this will of course depend on the room, etc, and the absence of a box boom may make other speakers seem to have 'more bass'... :-) I am always amazed (and entertained by their stupidity, er,,, on Christmas day I mean chutzpuh) of people whose own speakers bottom out around 100Hz lecturing me on how my Quad ESL-63 are "bass light" because they heard some other clown say it. (Dave Plowman already made the point about most people's idea of bass being around 100Hz. Gordon Rankin, the American amp designer, once made the point in a discussion of designing boxes for Diatech speakers that the cleanest sound is by rolling them off at about 60Hz rather than the 10 or even 15Hz lower that was then the mode. I tried it. Wonderful sound for box speakers; made the more normal designs sound wretched. On another occasion I was trying a crossover point on 57s to woofers of 110Hz and somehow in a listening session, the woofer wasn't operating -- I swear I didn't do it on purpose -- and none of my panel of self-declared audiophiles, though none of them with electrostats at home, noticed a thing...) It may be more significant that the sound pressure level you can get at low frequencies is perhaps more restricted than a good conventional speaker of similar price. But that is a question of sound power, not frequency response. It is worth saying that Quad stats, in a room say smaller than 3000 cubic feet, *will* damage your ears, and the more so if you stack them correctly to enhance the bass, because the bass is enhanced more than the mid- and high-frequencies. What happens on a stat is that bass is so clean that you think there is less of it, you turn it up, there isn't the grunge expected from boomboxes which also acts as a level- signal, you keep turning it up, and the actual sound energy reaching your ears is much higher than you would permit with a boombox. I became very aware of this when I bought a STAX electrostatic earphone as a gift for myself last Christmas. In test, trying to level-match B&O, Sennheiser and STAX headphones, I discovered that I used the STAX consistently 2dB and more above the level of the conventional driver headphones. I don't have a dummy measuring head, so my numbers may be a bit of a kludge, but the tendency is clear, and the reason is the clean bass, the absence of warning signals included in lower quality bass. Slainte, ****ing outside in the green and beloved island. I was planning a ride on my bike this afternoon. Oh well... Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html May you never come to the notice of the authorities! Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
I'll get into it with Andre one more time as I tire his cheap
uniformed shots at audio engineers. As usual, part of what Andre writes (here and on his website) is slightly correct, but much of it misleading and uninformed half truths. He is a self appointed expert without the benefit of an audio engineering education and is more often wrong than right. Every forum needs a clown to keep it entertaining, and Andre without his vitriol would fit the bill nicely. A couple of caveats: Andre and I have got into it before and I've endured his personal attacks which don't bother me. He knows my qualifications and hopefully won't waste time questioning them again. Only one of us is a member of the AES, SMPTE, and ASA. I've also been a big Quad fan my entire adult life, which means I've owned and (and repaired) Quads since 1976, including 57's, 63', 988's, 989's. I've also listened to the new 9805's for roughly eight hours of listening time. Toured the Huntington factory three times (twice with Peter Walker, once with Ross) before it closed. I am listening to a Kate Bush CD on 988's as I write this... The traditional calculation of damping factor is a ratio of the total impedance of the speaker divided by the total impedance to the speaker system being driven. Both vary with frequency, especially the speaker complex impedance. Assuming a given amplifier with a fixed impedance of 0.1 ohm across its power output (a huge assumption, especially with tube equipment), we only have to deal with the three other impedances associated with the speaker: acoustic, electrical, and mechanical of the speaker cable, speaker, and listening environment. The last two vary across the entire listening spectrum rather radically. Most audio engineers don't waste time calculating damping factor anymore as the number is somewhat meaningless from a comparative standpoint. Just the static electrical/mechanical impedance of a Quad 57 can be seen on this website: http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml. You tell me how to provide a single number based on that impedance graph, let alone with the acoustic impedance of the room added. The simple answer is you can't. Calculating these three impedances is impossible, although it can be measured fairly easily with B&K, TEF, MLSSA, and other commerically available machines in a given acoustic space with a given speaker. I suspect Andre has never seen, owned, or operated one of these devices based on my previous experiences with his writing. The "lowest frequency in a room" calculation stumping most audio engineers is an even more specious argument, because it stumps all of them! You can only estimate it, even after having all of the dimensions and materials entered into you auralization program (like EASE or Bose's). Again, you have to measure it with computer driven analytic tools to really know what's going on. The acoustic size of a room (not the mechanical size) varies with frequency. In smaller rooms (like the one you're probably in right now) you have dramatic differences in energy densities with time, which argues against the traditional homogenous, statistically reverberant sound field calculations. The acoustic juncture between of a small room can fall as high as 500 Hz, where it is typically below 30 Hz in a small room. The frequency dependency of the pressure zone, modal zone, the diffusion zone, and specular reflection zones will alter with room treatments. In other words, the low frequency cutoff changes constantly as you play your music. I suspect the same is true of your listening acuity as well, which further complicates the issue. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Andre Jute wrote: Hey, Jim, this is my thread Usenet is public not private. It's NOT 'your thread'. Graham |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article
, Andre Jute wrote: I've oft wondered about that. My actual experience of electrostatics is limited in depth to the original Quad design. And those had perhaps the most critical sweet spot of any speaker, but when in it had excellent imaging. I never did have an opportunity to live with a stacked set up to really decide how well it worked. Well, I had stacked ESL57 for years, and perhaps everyone should experience them once but stacks are not the end-all and be-all of stats; I'm just explaining to Poopie how it is done with the round- form diaphraghms like the ESL-63 because he doesn't appear to have the brains to work it out. The 57 is tricky to stack right; you can as easily muddle your sound as boost its volume. You stack ESL-57 one on top of the other, the top one turned upside down and angled towards the bottom one, the entire assembly pivoted around the joint towards the listening chair, ditto for the assembly on the other side. Each assembly is also angled inwards in relation to the side wall to face the listening chair squarely (line from the listening chair to the radiating face hits it perpendicularly). Now you're looking at four imaginary lines making a pyramid towards the listening chair. It helps to get the four lines the same length if you raise the assembly on each side several feet and tilt it over towards the listening chair. As by now you suspect, stacking ESL57 turns your music into a perfectly lonely pastime; the sweet spot becomes hypercritical in three dimensions. I kept stacked ESL for years because mine was aimed at my work chair in front of my computer, in which I sat in the sweet spot for hours. Visitors to my study had only a partial experience of the music... What I suspected. I only really heard them once and was plonked in the listening chair by the owner. And was reasonably impressed - although I need long term experience to form a firm opinion. For years I also had a singleton 57 from some old chappie who read my music column; it came complete with correspondence in Peter Walker's own hand which I still have. Sometimes for months on end I would play just the single 57, and not because I was moving around, quite the contrary: I was sitting at my desk for 16 hours every day grafting away on a big book. I remember that as one of the sweetest musical experiences ever, a really good reason to go mono; that is still my reference of the purest, most angelic sound I ever heard. Soundstaging is really a rather trivial trick, and the only one stereo offers for what is often a very high price in its associated downsides; it is a party trick for "audiophiles" who have no real interest in the enjoyment of music. I totally disagree. Everything being equal good stereo adds considerably to the enjoyment of pretty well any music or indeed reproduced sounds. It is of course more difficult to get good stereo in an average room and possibly also to record it. Certainly to reproduce it on early media which had to be mono compatible. Both FM radio and LP suffered flaws through the adoption of stereo. -- *If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
|
The damping factor and the sound of real music
"Andre Jute" wrote snupped to isolate the point Snupped?? Whatever.... For years I also had a singleton 57 from some old chappie who read my music column; it came complete with correspondence in Peter Walker's own hand which I still have. Sometimes for months on end I would play just the single 57, and not because I was moving around, quite the contrary: I was sitting at my desk for 16 hours every day grafting away on a big book. I remember that as one of the sweetest musical experiences ever, a really good reason to go mono; that is still my reference of the purest, most angelic sound I ever heard. Hah! Soundstaging is really a rather trivial trick, and the only one stereo offers for what is often a very high price in its associated downsides; it is a party trick for "audiophiles" who have no real interest in the enjoyment of music. It never fails to amaze me: a) that so many people dismiss mono simply because it isn't stereo and b) don't know when they are listening to mono anyway!! Only last night, my visitor (presently suffering from ME and struggles to get out of the house atm and whose weekly 'Tuesday therapy' transcends trivial interruptions like Christmas) who is a good listener and good *hearer* requested Brubeck at hideous o'clock last night/early this morning. I put on the version I like best (original '59 mono recording on Fontana TFL5085) and we were listening to it; suddenly he said 'That's *mono*!' - I said 'Yes, do you like it? 'Oh yes!', sez he (Take Five - wot else?) Stereo has got a lot to answer for with some stuff - 20' wide violins and pianos being wheeled backwards and forwards across the stage and such! Here's a Christmas 'Stereo Quiz' game: Change the following in 5 moves, only one letter at a time: ENHANCED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ****EDUP |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk