Best sounding speakers you have ever heard
RoninTO
itch to upgrade my speakers every 5 years. Since speakers are one of
the most important element of a stereo system I would like to know the
best sounding speakers you have ever had the pleasure of hearing or
owning. Money will not be a factor in this exercise.
Thank you in advance....
Sonnova
(in article <71l9b1F...@mid.individual.net>):
Easy. Martin Logan CLX. They need a sub (or two), but from 50 Hz up, they are
the closest thing to live music on the market today (IMHO, that is).
Runners-up:
Wilson Watt/Puppy viii
Magnepan MG-20
Kharama Ceramique 3.2
mbl 101 E MKII Radialstrahler
These represent the best of the speakers with which *I* am familiar. I'm not
saying that any of these are the best in the world as I haven't heard all
speakers, but I have heard these and they represent the best of what I've
heard.
Jenn
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:34:58 -0700, RoninTO wrote
> (in article <71l9b1F...@mid.individual.net>):
>
> > OK people it is time to weigh in on an old debate. I usually get the
> > itch to upgrade my speakers every 5 years. Since speakers are one of
> > the most important element of a stereo system I would like to know the
> > best sounding speakers you have ever had the pleasure of hearing or
> > owning. Money will not be a factor in this exercise.
> >
> > Thank you in advance....
> >
>
> Easy. Martin Logan CLX. They need a sub (or two), but from 50 Hz up, they are
> the closest thing to live music on the market today (IMHO, that is).
>
> Runners-up:
>
> Wilson Watt/Puppy viii
>
> Magnepan MG-20
Tough to beat those three. I was floored when I first heard the CLX.
Still floored in the next place I heard them. And the next, as well.
S888...@aol.com
The Sound Lab Majestics.
Same technology as the Martin Logan CLX. I have not heard the CLXs so
I can't compare but I would suspect that these models would be very
competitive. The Sound Labs will need more power. I suspect the CLXs
will need a state of the art subwoofer to be....state of the art.
UnclePhil
Hi Ron,
Best sounding speakers that I have heard are not available as a
consumer item.
First, find 1, or hopefully 2 ElectroVoice 30w bass drivers. You need
at least 76 cubic feet of enclosure for each one of them. I use two
that are custom ported for extra low frequency response and built into
the house. These babies reproduce from 22Hz to 43Hz. @ 115dB @ 2.5
metres (+/- 3db) With ports further optimised and eq aided for
linearity, can reach to 18 Hz with meaningful response at 109dB
(+/-3dB) @ 2.5 metres. (eq adds some phase issues, caveat noted but
enjoyed as such regardless)
Second, find a set of Infinity IRS bass drivers (6 drivers, 12 inch
Watkins dual coil per side) for the 42Hz to 80Hz range
Third, find a set of Magneplaner 3.6 dipoles for the upper ranges.
TriAmp the bunch with plenty of quality amperes to spare...
This is the compilation that I assemble at least 2 times per year for
at least 2 weeks at a time, each year to indulge myself in pleasure
and intrigue to explore the possibilities of reproducing sonic events
that I am entirely familiar with.
My wife hates this as it is ugly as hell. But it is sonically a dream
come true in action. I can probably improve the setup in some way,
but it is very satisfying. I love it.
Best regards,
Phil Simpson
tsta...@gmail.com
> In article <gp4c5r01...@news4.newsguy.com>,
>
>
>
> Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:34:58 -0700, RoninTO wrote
>
> > > OK people it is time to weigh in on an old debate. I usually get the
> > > itch to upgrade my speakers every 5 years. Since speakers are one of
> > > the most important element of a stereo system I would like to know the
> > > best sounding speakers you have ever had the pleasure of hearing or
> > > owning. Money will not be a factor in this exercise.
>
> > > Thank you in advance....
>
> > Easy. Martin Logan CLX. They need a sub (or two), but from 50 Hz up, they are
> > the closest thing to live music on the market today (IMHO, that is).
>
> > Runners-up:
>
> > Wilson Watt/Puppy viii
>
> > Magnepan MG-20
>
> Tough to beat those three. I was floored when I first heard the CLX.
> Still floored in the next place I heard them. And the next, as well.
I'd vote for the Magnepan MG-20's.
UnclePhil
Hello again,
In my haste to type the description of the hybrid loudspeaker
monstrosity that I assemble, I made a technical error in crossover
frequency.
The IRS woofers upper range is crossed over at 64 Hz, not 80 Hz. I
was confusing this setup with another setup I have experimented with
using EVX-180B woofers for the bass region crossed over at 80 Hz. The
Infinity IRS bass arrays are superior in resolution of detail to all
others I have tried in this "mid bass" range.
The physical size of these IRS woofer arrays added to the Maggie 3.6
dipoles makes for an ungodly, visually terrible sight in our listening
den however. Takes an entire rearrangement of furniture to accomplish
proper room-tuned placement as well.
My wife also appreciates the sonic results, but can't abide with the
decor results for very long!
Phil
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> First, find 1, or hopefully 2 ElectroVoice 30w bass
> drivers. You need at least 76 cubic feet of enclosure
> for each one of them.
Well, actually, you don't need "at least 76 cubic feet",
you need the correct volume, which, if the goal is
maximally flat unequalized response with maximum
excursion-limited output, 76 cubic feet (a mere
2150 liters) is close to best. Bigger than that in
fact INCREASES the cutoff frequency unless you
some pretty wierd alignments, resulting in a far
less than flat response.
In fact, the EV 30W is seriously OVERdamped,
if you believe the majority of specs published
in various sources, all of which suggest a Qts
of 0.27 or so. That's WAY overdamped for any
unassisted vented alignment.
About the flattest response you could get in a
76 liter enclosure is tuning the enclosure to about
24 Hz.; This gives a slightly drooping response
that's 3 dB down at 24.6 Hz, -8.3 dB at 20 Hz,
-14.8 dB at 16 Hz and so on.
> I use two that are custom ported
> for extra low frequency response and built into the house.
> These babies reproduce from 22Hz to 43Hz. @ 115dB @ 2.5
> metres (+/- 3db)
Uhm, well, no.
One of the problems with the EV 30Ws is that they
suffer from exceedingly small linear excursions. The
largest credible figure i have seen is on the order of
3 mm. With that sort of excursion limit, they'll be
excursion limited at 2.5 meters to substantially less
than you might think. Based on pure mechanical
displacement limiting, the maximum SPL's obtainable
at 2.5 meters is
20 Hz 98 dB SPL
25 102
32 106
40 112
> With ports further optimised and eq aided for
> linearity, can reach to 18 Hz with meaningful
> response at 109dB (+/-3dB) @ 2.5 metres.
76 liters is the wrong colume for an optimum EQ-
aided alignment.
> (eq adds some phase issues, caveat noted but
> enjoyed as such regardless)
No, minimum-phase EQ added to a minimum-phase
response results in the two phase error of each
cancelling out, resulting in no excess phase.
> Second, find a set of Infinity IRS bass drivers (6 drivers,
> 12 inch Watkins dual coil per side) for the 42Hz to 80Hz
> range
Interestingly enough, they're probably better
subwoofers in every way (dmaping, excursion,
linearity, and so on)than the EV 30Ws,
except in testosterone content.
> TriAmp the bunch with plenty of quality
> amperes to spare...
And that crossover is going to be one devil
to get working: two octave band-pass filters?
And you're worried about the phase issues
with your EQ?!
RoninTO
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:34:58 -0700, RoninTO wrote
The ML CLX's look very impressive. I have heard the Summit speakers
which are also impressive for their imaging and sound stage. The
Summits lacked deep base slam and it appears the CLX's don't reach
lower that 56Hz. Am I wrong on this and isn't this a huge issue for
most listeners? Would you try to combine these speakers with a sub?
Sonnova
(in article <71n919F...@mid.individual.net>):
Have you heard the CLX. I think that if you had, you'd move the MG20 down a
notch or two in your esteem.
Sonnova
(in article <71luq7F...@mid.individual.net>):
Me too. They truly are a breakthrough product. Wished I had the money (and
the room) for a pair of them.
pf...@aol.com
> > I'd vote for the Magnepan MG-20's.
>
> Have you heard the CLX. I think that if you had, you'd move the MG20 down a
> notch or two in your esteem.
Just a question since ML went Pacific Rim for manufacture - and
Maggies, as far as I know are still Made & Assembled in the USA:
Has there been any perceivable degradation in quality with ML? I have
often toyed with getting a pair of ML speakers at some point but it
will be a very cold day in the deep nether regions before Pacific-Rim
speakers live in our house.
Yes, I keep Maggies - and they qualify as the best speakers I have
heard in our house - what happens in other locations *does not count*.
And this should be kept in mind when auditioning speakers every step
of the way. Until you hear them in your environment listening to your
music from your sources using your electronics it is ALL the purest
speculation.
Thanks in advance.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
UnclePhil
Have you worked with this driver personally? Perhaps you are creating
assumptions from technical data sheets? Maybe just attempting to
"stir the pot" a bit for entertainment sake? Maybe you are just
trying to be illuminating? In any case, here's a brief wrapup of the
evolution of these drivers.
My 30w drivers have been rebuilt from scratch with only the frames
being original, but with some structural mods as well to improve
strength and reduce resonance with bimetal techniques. When looking
for these drivers I was unable to find any with a good surround, cone,
or voice coil for that matter. Had to reinvent them a bit from
necessity as they would not serve anything as received.
When rebuilding, we did not try to extend the excursion by much
though. A 30 inch cone moves a tremendous amount of air without
needing much excursion. My average listening levels are far from
deafening, so I was not in need of excessive average spl.
The loudspeakers are built into the house in a hybrid ported/folded
horn configuration with adjustable tunings for the porting and the
ability to modify the sizes of the folded horn sections, or subtract
it completely if desired. The configuration of the two drivers also
acoustically couples them physically which amplifies the overall
output as well.
So simply, the drivers are coupled to themselves, the ports, the
horns, and the room as a unit.
The reason why there is so much adjustment available in this woofer
system is because we didn't know exactly how the drivers were going to
end up in terms of T/S parameters. It was important to be able to
play with the tunings while examining the output results with a RTS
unit, tone generator, and oscilloscope. Stacking the odds as much as
possible to create something as perfect as possible from the rebuilt
drivers/enclosure/room interfacing. Plenty of familiar music
reference including demanding pipe organ recordings as well.
The results are great. Until we finished these, the IRS woofers were
the best solution. Now they are my second best solution and
testosterone has nothing to do with it. The drivers are not visible
in the room, so I'm not "high" on having a set of 30 inch drivers
installed. It is only audible results that matter.
Best regards,
Phil Simpson
ftran999
> On Mar 10, 1:59 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>
>> > I'd vote for the Magnepan MG-20's.
>>
>> Have you heard the CLX. I think that if you had, you'd move the MG20 down
>> a
>> notch or two in your esteem.
>
> Just a question since ML went Pacific Rim for manufacture - and
> Maggies, as far as I know are still Made & Assembled in the USA:
>
I believe only the lower end of the ML line is manufacured in Asia. I'm not
sure where the cutoff is but it is probably fair to say that at least the
summits and CLX is manufactured here.
Sonnova
(in article <gp69p...@news7.newsguy.com>):
Yes, I would. I have heard them both ways. While they still impress without
the subs, they are jaw dropping with them I heard them with both a Pair of
M-L Descent i powered subwoofers and with a pair of the largest available
Sunfire subs. I preferred the Sunfires.
Sonnova
(in article <gp6hb...@news4.newsguy.com>):
> On Mar 10, 1:59 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'd vote for the Magnepan MG-20's.
>>
>> Have you heard the CLX. I think that if you had, you'd move the MG20 down a
>> notch or two in your esteem.
>
> Just a question since ML went Pacific Rim for manufacture - and
> Maggies, as far as I know are still Made & Assembled in the USA:
>
> Has there been any perceivable degradation in quality with ML? I have
> often toyed with getting a pair of ML speakers at some point but it
> will be a very cold day in the deep nether regions before Pacific-Rim
> speakers live in our house.
AFAIK, CLXs are built in the USA. In fact their website infers (but doesn't
actually say) that all M-L products are made in Kansas at their extensive
factory. I'll be that if any are made in Asia, its the two lowest priced
models, the Purity and the Source. I have noticed that they have recently
raised their prices. The Source was $1995 when it first came out and is now
$2195, and the purity was $2995 when it forst came out and is now $3295.
>
> Yes, I keep Maggies - and they qualify as the best speakers I have
> heard in our house - what happens in other locations *does not count*.
> And this should be kept in mind when auditioning speakers every step
> of the way. Until you hear them in your environment listening to your
> music from your sources using your electronics it is ALL the purest
> speculation.
Since both the CLX and the MG-20 are both dipole radiators. I suspect that
they would react similarly in your listening room.
Arny Krueger
news:71o59sF...@mid.individual.net...
> Have you worked with this driver personally?
Close enough. I have a number of friends who have had them. I've listened to
30Ws for hour after hour. Two friends slowly but gently cooked their 30w's
voice coils over a period of a goodly nunber of years, and one keeps his as
a working antique, mostly as a financial investment.
> Perhaps you are creating
> assumptions from technical data sheets? Maybe just attempting to
> "stir the pot" a bit for entertainment sake? Maybe you are just
> trying to be illuminating? In any case, here's a brief wrapup of the
> evolution of these drivers.
The history of a driver may be romantic, but this bears little on how they
will perform for the audiophile who is looking for his next upgrade. You're
obviously not going to part with yours, and as I pointed out most are vastly
overpriced given their performance.
> My 30w drivers have been rebuilt from scratch with only the frames
> being original, but with some structural mods as well to improve
> strength and reduce resonance with bimetal techniques. When looking
> for these drivers I was unable to find any with a good surround, cone,
> or voice coil for that matter. Had to reinvent them a bit from
> necessity as they would not serve anything as received.
Your comments about voice coils support the statements I made about their
inadequacy in my other post to this thread.
> When rebuilding, we did not try to extend the excursion by much
> though. A 30 inch cone moves a tremendous amount of air without
> needing much excursion.
Thing is, the world is full of 13 to 18 inch drivers with far greater linear
air-handling capabilties. They run from a few hundred dollars to about
$700. They are designed to work well in far more practical sized enclosures.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> Have you worked with this driver personally?
Yes.
> Perhaps you are creating assumptions from
> technical data sheets?
No, I am making very testable technical assertions
based on both extensive technical experience, tools
and direct knowledge, thank you.
> Maybe just attempting to "stir the pot" a bit
If stirring the pot means bringing clarity to
the table, stir I shall.
> for entertainment sake?
Certainly not for my own, to be sure.
> My 30w drivers have been rebuilt from scratch
> with only the frames being original,
That seems to contradict your original
recommendation:
"First, find 1, or hopefully 2 ElectroVoice
30w bass drivers. "
You're telling us now that there is NO hope of
finding the drivers of which you speak, and you
might be found guilty of leading some down the
garden path, since the figures I was talking
about to reasonably apply to 30Ws, and you are,
in essence, telling us you don't have 30Ws, but
some one-of-a-kind facsimiles, the parameters of
which we don't know about.
> When rebuilding, we did not try to extend the excursion by much
> though. A 30 inch cone moves a tremendous amount of air without
> needing much excursion.
The total volume displacement is what matters.
There exists 15" drivers whose volume displacement
equals or exceeds that of the 30W.
> My average listening levels are far from
> deafening, so I was not in need of excessive average spl.
Then why do you need 30" woofers. The ONLY potential
advantage is SPL, and the disadvantages are legion.
> The loudspeakers are built into the house in a hybrid ported/folded
> horn configuration with adjustable tunings for the porting and the
> ability to modify the sizes of the folded horn sections, or subtract
> it completely if desired. The configuration of the two drivers also
> acoustically couples them physically which amplifies the overall
> output as well.
But you say you don't need it the SPL.
It's becoming less clear to me what technical
advantages, then, your taking advantage of?
> The reason why there is so much adjustment
> available in this woofer system is because we
> didn't know exactly how the drivers were going to
> end up in terms of T/S parameters.
Do you know what the T/S parameters ended up
being?
> The drivers are not visible
> in the room,
But they're quite visible on the internet!
> so I'm not "high" on having a set of 30 inch drivers
> installed. It is only audible results that matter.
But if you're saying that the singular advantage
they provide is not something you're taking advantage
of, and that there are other systems that have
volume displacements equalling or exceeding that
of the EV 30Ws, and it's only the audible results
that matter, you, to me, seem to be presenting
a confusing picture that suggests that 30Ws
don't matter, but they do.
Arny Krueger
> On Mar 9, 2:34 pm, RoninTO <ronald.che...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First, find 1, or hopefully 2 ElectroVoice 30w bass drivers.
Then run the other way as quickly and as far as possible. ;-)
If memory serves, EV 30Ws are children of the early 60s. On the plus side
they have quite high efficiency (over 100 dB/W), but on the minus side they
have no more than about 3 mm of Xmax and a voice coil that starts fizzing
and bubbling if you hit with even as little as 60 watts for any amount of
time.
A comparable modern high efficiency driver might have about half the cone
diameter, but maybe 4-6 times the Xmax. If we include medium to low
efficiency drivers, then there might 8-10 times the 30w's limited Xmax. In
either case, the modern driver has signficantly greater linear air-moving
capability.
However, the limited voice coil power handling abilties of the 30W were
often a more serious problem then the limited Xmax. A modern driver might
have from 5 to 20 times the power-handling capabilities, more than
offsetting its lower efficiency.
Then there are the problems related to the 30W's electrical and mechanical
parameters which are very definately pre-Theil/Small. Modern drivers work
well with far more realistic box sizes for optimum performance, with or
without equalization.
Then there are the rotten economics of 30W drivers, recently having been
offered on eBay for as much as $4,000 each. The modern drivers I refer to
above have street prices that are no more than 20% of that. There are some
running more like 10% of the price.
The late 1960s are close to 40 years in the past. Audio technology, even in
such relatively slow-moving areas like speakers, has come a long ways since
then.
Rob Tweed
of a warehouse and don't have wallets of similar proportions, what
recommendations for more practical speakers that nevertheless "deliver
the goods"?
[Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the Martin Logans or Maggies,
but half my furniture would need to go! :-) ]
On 10 Mar 2009 00:27:39 GMT, Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com>
wrote:
---
Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR
Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com
UnclePhil
Good to know that you have some hands on knowledge of these drivers.
I thought that I was keeping things rather clear by stating that my
configuration was not available as a consumer item. The entire gist
of the message was that I was assembling a personal type of "holy
grail" loudspeaker system.
> You're telling us now that there is NO hope of
> finding the drivers of which you speak, and you
> might be found guilty of leading some down the
> garden path, since the figures I was talking
> about to reasonably apply to 30Ws, and you are,
> in essence, telling us you don't have 30Ws, but
> some one-of-a-kind facsimiles, the parameters of
> which we don't know about.
I had no luck finding any readily usable 30w drivers without spending
a horrid amount of cash on essentially an unknown quantity in terms of
performance in any case. Any 30w drivers available have either been
rebuilt in some extent, likely several times, or perhaps unused as NOS
(didn't find any of these, but always a possibility), and time takes
it's toll upon the surrounds and magnets at the very least.
I purchased "basket case" drivers with sound frames. During the
rebuilding process, we employed alternate technologies to hopefully
improve the deficiencies of the 30w driver in terms of motor, moving
mass, cone distortion, surrounds, frame integrity and resonance
taming.
Yes, I agree that your figures were average ballpark for the 30w
drivers.
> > When rebuilding, we did not try to extend the excursion by much
> > though. A 30 inch cone moves a tremendous amount of air without
> > needing much excursion.
>
> The total volume displacement is what matters.
> There exists 15" drivers whose volume displacement
> equals or exceeds that of the 30W.
>
> > My average listening levels are far from
> > deafening, so I was not in need of excessive average spl.
>
> Then why do you need 30" woofers. The ONLY potential
> advantage is SPL, and the disadvantages are legion.
Not the purpose entirely at all. I have experienced some rather
revealing sonic events with good deployments of 30w drivers back in
the 70's. I found them intriguing as perhaps the one very musical
friendly driver in a ported enclosure that was capable of hitting low
bass with some accuracy.
Until my experiments with these drivers came to realization, the
Infinity IRS bass arrays were my absolute favourite. Before these
were a pair of Hartley 24 inch woofers that I had custom loaded into
my listening room in acoustic suspension.
Now, with the experience and knowledge gleaned through the rebuilding
of the 30w drivers, I have been considering performing similar
modifications to the Hartleys as my next experiment.
> But you say you don't need it the SPL.
> It's becoming less clear to me what technical
> advantages, then, your taking advantage of?
I was not focusing upon a technical advantage. However, I was not
ignoring employing technical improvements when reasonable either.
The prime focus was a fascination of the realism of deep bass possible
from this driver. In my personal opinion, what the experiment arrived
upon was a marked improvement in realism over what the Infinity IRS
bass drivers deliver in the 20 to 40Hz range.
I must go to bed as I have been out all night doing the sound for a
local band. I can and will look up the t/s parameters of our
reconstructed 30w drivers. Later....
Best regards,
Phil
Sonnova
(in article <gp776...@news7.newsguy.com>):
My experience with 50s and 60's era bass drivers is that most of them don't
really have much bass, irrespective of their driver size. When I got out of
college, my roomie and I bought a pair of Altec-Lansing 15" "Model 604E
Duplex" speakers. These had a 15" woofer, a 6" 'whizzer" cone and a
multicellular horn-type tweeter all mounted in the same driver one, inside
the other. Though we purchased them used, they were just a couple of years
old and the cones and surrounds were in good shape. We obtained, from
Altec-Lansing, a set of plans for the proper enclosures to go with these
drivers and built them to spec using 3/4" plywood and lots of bracing. After
finishing the boxes, we sat down to listen. I was appalled at how anemic the
bass was. Nothing much below about 50 Hz, that's for sure. Another friend
bought an 18" Altec driver pair and built the cabinets for those. Again, not
much bass. Some years later I ran into a fellow recording engineer who ran
his location recording activities as a semi-business. In his basement he had
a "studio" and did all of his mixing (he had a half-inch, 8-Track TASCAM
analog recorder) using a pair of REAL Altec-Lansing A7 "Voice of the
Theater" folded horn speaker systems actually pulled from theater that was
being torn down. He had the drivers re-coned by Altec and was quite proud of
them in their green-grey enamel paint finishes (they were impressive
looking). Again, no bass. They fell -off like a stone below 50 Hz. Another
acquaintance had a 15" Electrovoice woofer along with the matching 6"
midrange and diffraction horn tweeter mounted in the proper Karlson box
(remember those?) with it's exponential "slot loading". Its bass was no great
shakes either. Various Classic Klipschorns have also, over the years, failed
to impress me with their bass performance (even though they're spec'd to 30
Hz). I often thought that a proper AR2 or AR3 with enough amplifier power
behind it could outperform these behemoths, bass-wise, anyway, seven ways to
sundown. BTW, my opinion of the multicellular Altec "treble horns" and
Electrovoice horn tweeters was that they rang like the bells of Notre Dame.
We've come a long, long way.
Steve
the
itch to upgrade my speakers every 5 years. Since speakers are one of
the most important element of a stereo system I would like to know
the
best sounding speakers you have ever had the pleasure of hearing or
owning. Money will not be a factor in this exercise."
This is a harder question then it sounds - many speakers sound very
impressive in a show room but when you live with them a while are
fatiguing. Also your room is a factor that may limit you as regards
size or acoustics. Whats the use of putting the worlds best full range
speaker (if there is such a creature) in a small NY apartment? So are
you asking seriously for a particular room or is this a fantasy
speaker contest for a fantasy room?
Andrew Haley
The best? Probably the B&W Nautilus. I heard them in a dealer's
showroom and I have to confess that my opinion may have been swayed by
the look of the things, but they did sound fabulous.
Andrew.
Arny Krueger
news:gp8hr...@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:21:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> My experience with 50s and 60's era bass drivers is that most of them
> don't
> really have much bass, irrespective of their driver size.
I can think of a number of reasons for this:
(1) In the 50s and 60s, program material, being 100% analog generally did
not have what we would today call deep bass extension. The LP format is a
congenital mess below 50 Hz because of the tone arm resonance, and analog
tape is a different but equally severe mess due to head bumps.
(2) Tubed power amps can be made with good power response down to 20 Hz, but
only at a great cost in size, weight, and cost.
(3) Since truly high powered amplifiers were like hen's teeth in the 50s and
early 60s, the iron law of enclosure volume, low frequency extension, and
efficiency combined to make high efficiency a high priority.
> When I got out of
> college, my roomie and I bought a pair of Altec-Lansing 15" "Model 604E
> Duplex" speakers. These had a 15" woofer, a 6" 'whizzer" cone and a
> multicellular horn-type tweeter all mounted in the same driver one, inside
> the other.
In college I was the president of the school's high fi club. The club had
previously been *gifted* with 605s, which were slightly brain-deadened
versions of the 604.
> Though we purchased them used, they were just a couple of years
> old and the cones and surrounds were in good shape. We obtained, from
> Altec-Lansing, a set of plans for the proper enclosures to go with these
> drivers and built them to spec using 3/4" plywood and lots of bracing.
> After
> finishing the boxes, we sat down to listen. I was appalled at how anemic
> the
> bass was. Nothing much below about 50 Hz, that's for sure.
If you measured the fundamental resonance of that system, you'd have
objective evidence of the reason why.
> I often thought that a proper AR2 or AR3 with enough amplifier power
> behind it could outperform these behemoths, bass-wise, anyway, seven ways
> to
> sundown.
AR2/3 were pretty good down to about 40 Hz, and in the right room would do
useful things down to about 32 Hz. That gives them 10-20 Hz of bass
extension as compared to the behemoths.
> BTW, my opinion of the multicellular Altec "treble horns" and
> Electrovoice horn tweeters was that they rang like the bells of Notre
> Dame.
EV eventually cleaned up their act quite a bit. The simplistic crossover
designs of the day did not help, and often hurt.
> We've come a long, long way.
Agreed.
pf...@aol.com
> For those of us who don't live in houses with listening rooms the size
> of a warehouse and don't have wallets of similar proportions, what
> recommendations for more practical speakers that nevertheless "deliver
> the goods"?
>
> [Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the Martin Logans or Maggies,
> but half my furniture would need to go! :-) ]
OK - I will bite. All the while keeping in mind that I am a *vintage
equipment* person and so most of my suggestions will be old enough to
vote if not quite ready for Medicare.
Our library (and main listening room) is 17 x 24 x 9'-6" (5.2m x 7.3m
x 2.9m) with hardwood floors, plaster walls and ceiling, three full-
height divided-light French Doors, one wood French door, a soapstone &
brick fireplace and full-height shelves on both short ends. There is a
carpet on the floor with smaller orientals on it and some overstuffed
furniture. We use the maggies wall-mounted on stand-offs asymetrically
on the long wall by width and height with a sub (Revox, 300mm woofer)
mounted near a corner about twice the woofer diameter from either wall
- driven from a vintage Revox A722/A720 combination also fed by a Sony
200-disc changer. It sounds quite wonderful and the entire set-up set
me back less than $1,000. This system gets perhaps 10 - 15 hours/week
of use.
The Wife-Friendly system is in a much smaller room (17 x 15 x 9'-6" /
5.2m x 4.6m x 2.9m) also with lots of glass, plaster and hardwood, a
very thick Turkish 800-knot rug and upholstered furniture. That uses
AR3a speakers (rebuilt crossovers, by-passed pots) mounted on low
vertical stands asymetrically on the long wall from an AR Model R
receiver and a Yamaha 5-disc CD changer. This gets used perhaps 4-8
hours per week of use depending on the main system. It is a highly
listenable system and set me back perhaps all of $800 with the single
most expensive item being the CD Changer which we purchased new in
Saudi about 7 years ago.
My workshop system (actually a small second-floor bedroom) is about
13' x 15' x 9' (I will let you do the metric conversions), three
windows, two doors, two radiators, plaster walls/ceiling and full-
carpet floor. It gets ARM5 speakers fed via a Scott LK-150 tube amp
fed with another A720 and a B225 CD player, B215 cassette deck, B790
TT and A77 RtR deck. Also sounds quite wonderful in that small space.
This gets about 4-6 hours of use per week, mostly on the weekends when
I am tinkering with whatever is on the bench at the moment - less in
the summer, more in the winter. I keep the tube stuff and the
turntables out of the main listening venues as we have small grand-
children running loose a good deal of the time. Even caged the tubes
get hot. And TTs are 'attractive nuisances' when it comes to kids. No
clue as to what I may have paid for this - it represents 10 years of
accretions and finds usually needing repair or restoration. But I did
trade some nominally expensive items for the Amp and the Revox stuff.
Other systems that rotate in and out include a full HK system
(Citation 16/17/18/ST-7) driving AR4x or AR Athena Sub/Sat speakers
depending on my mood. The sub/sat system is ideal for smaller rooms
and unobtusive positioning yet yielding full-bodied sound - the sub is
2 x 10" (250mm) woofers. But AR made very, very few of these systems
before they were raped and pillaged by Jensen. These options rotate in
and out of the guest room, about twice the size of my workshop.
There is another Revox sub-sat (Piccolo) system and another AR system
in the inventory. All of them can move considerable air. And several
sets of Dynaco tube & SS amps, a dozen different makes of tuners and
various other accumulations and accretions of all sorts.
And it is the grands, cats and dogs, as well as my natural cheapness
that keeps me away from New Equipment for the most part. If I can make
myself very happy using vintage stuff and my pretty decent repair
skills (additional therapy) I am not driven to have SOTA at every
opportunity. Venues such as the twice-annual Kutztown Radio Meet
brings all sorts of equipment out of the woodwork where one may kick
the tires and examine the goods at leisure. Craig's List brings some
amazing stuff at amazing prices, and even the several local consigment
shops are good for nifty oddities and finds if one develops a
relationship with management. Get in harm's way. And if the SO
complains just tell her that it keeps you close to home, doesn't eat
and is much cheaper than another woman/man.
Sonnova
(in article <71q00jF...@mid.individual.net>):
[quoted sig deleted -- deb]
The Martin-Logan "Source" model speakers at about $US2200/pair are 51.2" (130
cm) tall, 9.7" (24.5 cm) wide, and 14.6" (37 cm) deep. Certainly small
enough for any listening room and they do "deliver the goods".
Steve
>of a warehouse and don't have wallets of similar proportions, what
>recommendations for more practical speakers that nevertheless "deliver
> the goods"?
What size is your wallet? There are good speakers (for the price) over
a very wide price range and what may be expensive for me may be cheap
for you or the opposite!
Rob Tweed
Of course, that goes without saying. I'd leave that to the individual
person - within what a person would deem to be an acceptable budget
for them, what's the best they've heard? That way we'll probably see
a wide range of recommendation across a wide price range. eg the
little AudioEngines are probably a great recommendation at the low end
(100 UKP) bracket, and the Martin Logans are clearly a recommendation
at the money-no-object end. In between?
In the UK, imported US speakers such as Martin Logans and Magnepans
tend to be eye-wateringly expensive - at least as much in pounds as
you guys pay in dollars. For that reason most people here will tend
to go for the British brands - eg B&W, Kef, Mission, Monitor Audio,
Quad etc - which tend to offer better value for money.
Rob Tweed
wrote:
>The Martin-Logan "Source" model speakers at about $US2200/pair are 51.2" (130
>cm) tall, 9.7" (24.5 cm) wide, and 14.6" (37 cm) deep. Certainly small
>enough for any listening room and they do "deliver the goods".
Various Martin Logan speakers come up from time to time on eBay here
in the UK. I haven't seen the Source" appear, indeed they aren't
listed on the ML UK web site (though they do appear in their US site).
Q: are there any ML speakers that you *wouldn't* recommend - the
corollary: is it worth snapping up *any* ML model if you can get a
bargain price?
pf...@aol.com
> Various Martin Logan speakers come up from time to time on eBay here
> in the UK. I haven't seen the Source" appear, indeed they aren't
> listed on the ML UK web site (though they do appear in their US site).
>
> Q: are there any ML speakers that you *wouldn't* recommend - the
> corollary: is it worth snapping up *any* ML model if you can get a
> bargain price?
Just a though when it comes to speakers of this nature (ML,
electrostatics in general & Maggies):
DO NOT purchase them unless you can either kick the tires or have a
viable, low-cost return promise. They are quirky speakers that
typically cannot be repaired by the end-user if damaged. Further,
there are often very subtle defects that are entirely invisible to
even the most detailed photographs.
UnclePhil
Rustled through the files on the 30w driver installation.
I mentioned "You need at least 76 cubic feet of enclosure for each one
of them." in my original contribution to this thread. This is only
the EV recommendation for these drivers, as I understand it. Our
installation used the existing floor enclosures constructed for the
Hartley woofers, and that allowed us a little over 200 cubic feet. I
did not record the exact figure, but I remember it being about 160
cubic feet.
Thiele Small parameters that we arrived upon were
Fs: 16
Vas: 168
Qms: 2.87
Qes: .362
Re: 4.6
Xmax: 0.18
The effective piston diameter is now 27 inches.
The continuous RMS power rating is increased to 135 watts.
Sensitivity (1w @ 1 meter): 100 dB
The new suspension system changed the cone diameter a little. The new
cone is similar in material to original spec, but less massive, and
more rigid. The new voice coil adapted to this motor allowed slightly
more than double the power handling capacity. The new voice coil is
slightly longer, allowing a small amount of improvement to Xmax. Cone
suspension components are more compliant than original as well.
Somewhere along with all the improvements, we lacked 1 dB of
sensitivity compared against the original. Had hoped that this would
be augmented as well. Although I don't listen at high average spl,
any headroom for transients is always welcome.
All acoustic response measurements double checked with RTS analyser
and oscilloscope using calibratred pair of phase matched condenser
microphones traceable to NRC standards. ($250.00 to hire the mics)
Best regards,
Phil Simpson
pf...@aol.com
> I mentioned "You need at least 76 cubic feet of enclosure for each one
> of them." in my original contribution to this thread. This is only
> the EV recommendation for these drivers, as I understand it. Our
> installation used the existing floor enclosures constructed for the
> Hartley woofers, and that allowed us a little over 200 cubic feet. I
> did not record the exact figure, but I remember it being about 160
> cubic feet.
160 cubic feet. Hmmm.... cube root of 160 is 5.43 feet. Cube Root of
76 is 4.24 feet.
Pretty big in either case.
From what I am gathering using the term "floor enclosure" this size is
achieved by setting all/part of the system under floor level? This
sure does make placement awkward.
Are you sure?
Steve
individual
person - within what a person would deem to be an acceptable budget
for them, what's the best they've heard? That way we'll probably see
a wide range of recommendation across a wide price range. eg the
little AudioEngines are probably a great recommendation at the low
end
(100 UKP) bracket, and the Martin Logans are clearly a recommendation
at the money-no-object end. In between? "
I updated my speakers last year and ended up with Harbeth Super HL5
which sounded best for me in there price range. I think they go for
about 4 to 5K in the USA and less in the UK of course. They are not
full range but do what they do very very well. They are excellent in
the mid range and tend to fit in well with a large variety of
listening spaces - they have a kind of funny cabinet which is looser
then most speakers but seems to work and there drivers are hand made
by Harbeth and are better then the off the shelf components most
speakers are built from. The owner, Alan Shaw, seems to be an audio
objectivist at heart and is refreshingly free from bull shit (for
example he says that Harbeth speakers require 0 break in time, don't
require anything more then an average 50w amp for average size rooms,
says they will sound fine on a pile of telephone directories, doesn't
believe cables make any difference and so on). He seems to believe in
what he is doing and takes a great pride in his products. That doesn't
mean the products are necessarily good (even though they are!) but it
is a very positive and refreshing attitude in this hobby of ours.
Another advantage they have is that they provide a very easy load to
the amp so you can get excellent sound with any decent budget amp. No
other speaker I heard in the price range,using my NAD as the amp, came
even close. I see the OP is in the UK where the Harbeth prices are
best (as they are made in the UK) so I would say to you give it a
listen if you don't mind the retro looks.....
Rockinghorse Winner
out this gem...
> OK people it is time to weigh in on an old debate. I usually get the
> itch to upgrade my speakers every 5 years. Since speakers are one of
> the most important element of a stereo system I would like to know the
> best sounding speakers you have ever had the pleasure of hearing or
> owning. Money will not be a factor in this exercise.
>
> Thank you in advance....
>
My Epos es11's.
*R* *H*
--
The 19th-century clown Joseph Grimaldi, when old and
incurably depressed, visited a doctor. The physician advised him
to cheer himself up by seeing the great comedian Grimaldi.
Whereupon his patient told him: Doctor, I am Grimaldi.
Sonnova
(in article <gpblf...@news5.newsguy.com>):
Models made before about 2000, I would hesitate to recommend. In my opinion
the woofer and the ES panel do not match-up very well on the earlier models.
RoninTO
I am surprised by how much the electrostatics from the US are
dominating this conversation especially given their weakness for low
end bass and ML’s inability to seamless combine a sub with their
electrostatic panels (IMHO). What about the B&W 800 series or the new
Quads. Do they not represent state of the art sound? Anyone on the
other side of the pond have an opinion on the Tannoy TD12’s.
RoninTO
I am looking to hear the very best speakers out there regardless of
budget, room, etc... These parameters are only hurdles to over come
as we pursue great music and sound. I heard a pair of Wisdom Audio
M75's a number of years ago and to this day they represent one of the
best sounding speakers I have heard regardless of price. I understand
the Focal Grande Utopia EM are also incredible speakers. I am trying
to find a dealer within a 5 hr drive with these speakers on the
floor. Even though I may never be able to afford speakers in this
price range I would like to know how much further it is to the peak.
Cheers!
Arny Krueger
> Hello again dpierce,
>
> Rustled through the files on the 30w driver installation.
>
> I mentioned "You need at least 76 cubic feet of enclosure for each one
> of them." in my original contribution to this thread. This is only
> the EV recommendation for these drivers, as I understand it. Our
> installation used the existing floor enclosures constructed for the
> Hartley woofers, and that allowed us a little over 200 cubic feet. I
> did not record the exact figure, but I remember it being about 160
> cubic feet.
>
> Thiele Small parameters that we arrived upon were
>
> Fs: 16
> Vas: 168
> Qms: 2.87
> Qes: .362
> Re: 4.6
> Xmax: 0.18
First cut is that optimum box size would be 1/3 of Vas. That puts optimal
box volume at about 55 cubic feet.
Feeting the above parameters into a design calculator for an optimally flat
system, I get about 44 cubic feet.
Sonnova
(in article <gpcmj...@news4.newsguy.com>):
> On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Rob Tweed <rtw...@mgateway.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2009 14:28:21 GMT, Steve <goldstarst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> For those of us who don't live in houses with listening rooms the size
>>>> of a warehouse and don't have wallets of similar proportions, what
>>>> recommendations for more practical speakers that nevertheless "deliver
>>>> the goods"?
>>
>>> What size is your wallet? There are good speakers (for the price) over
>>> a very wide price range and what may be expensive for me may be cheap
>>> for you or the opposite!
>>
>> Of course, that goes without saying. I'd leave that to the individual
>> person - within what a person would deem to be an acceptable budget
>> for them, what's the best they've heard? That way we'll probably see
>> a wide range of recommendation across a wide price range. eg the
>> little AudioEngines are probably a great recommendation at the low end
>> (100 UKP) bracket, and the Martin Logans are clearly a recommendation
>> at the money-no-object end. In between?
>>
>> In the UK, imported US speakers such as Martin Logans and Magnepans
>> tend to be eye-wateringly expensive - at least as much in pounds as
>> you guys pay in dollars. For that reason most people here will tend
>> to go for the British brands - eg B&W, Kef, Mission, Monitor Audio,
>> Quad etc - which tend to offer better value for money.
>
> I am surprised by how much the electrostatics from the US are
> dominating this conversation especially given their weakness for low
> end bass and ML s inability to seamless combine a sub with their
> electrostatic panels (IMHO). What about the B&W 800 series or the new
> Quads. Do they not represent state of the art sound? Anyone on the
> other side of the pond have an opinion on the Tannoy TD12 s.
First of all, I disagree that M-L is unable to seamlessly combine a cone
low-frequency driver with their electrostatic panels. While I do readily
agree that this was, at one time, a glaring fault with Martin-Logan's hybrid
electrostatic designs, it has not been so for almost a decade. Starting with
the Aeon i and continuing through to the current Vantage and Vista models,
M-L's integration of cone and ES drivers is, essentially seamless.
As for B&Ws, I've never heard anything that I would consider noteworthy about
any of their designs. While Quads are very good, they are expensive on this
side of the pond and simply aren't as transparent as M-Ls. Tannoy aren't well
represented by dealers here in the US (AFAIK), and therefore I cannot
comment.
UnclePhil
(snipped for brevity)
> 160 cubic feet. Hmmm.... cube root of 160 is 5.43 feet. Cube Root of
> 76 is 4.24 feet.
>
> Pretty big in either case.
>
> From what I am gathering using the term "floor enclosure" this size is
> achieved by setting all/part of the system under floor level? This
> sure does make placement awkward.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
Yes indeed! The woofer enclosure area is a very well sealed room in
the basement. I originally had a pair of Hartley 24" in acoustic
suspension installed. The floor sections that are used for the
speaker's baffles were replaced with 1" void free birch plywood that
is reinforced with a standoff mount cutout of another piece of 1" vf
birch plywood. 12 gauge woven wire grilles and covers made from
laminate hardwood flooring keep them neat and clean when not in use.
This was the only way I could sell the idea to my wife. She would not
abide with more huge, hulking speaker enclosures in the room. It was
a great compromise, because after installing the Hartleys in the floor
and experiencing the results, I must admit that there is likely no
better placement for a low frequency driver. (in my humble opinion)
The EV-30w drivers are "right at home" in the floor mounting
configuration. The placement of the woofers is about as perfect as
the room will allow. Floor mounting couples the drivers intrinsically
with the room. Tactile transients are reproduced convincingly,
without delay or damping of character.
Best regards,
Phil Simpson
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
>
> Fs: 16
> Vas: 168
> Qms: 2.87
> Qes: .362
> Re: 4.6
> Xmax: 0.18
>
> The effective piston diameter is now 27 inches.
> The continuous RMS power rating is increased
> to 135 watts. Sensitivity (1w @ 1 meter):
> 100 dB
>
> The new suspension system changed the cone
> diameter a little. The new cone is similar
> in material to original spec, but less
> massive, and more rigid. The new voice coil
> adapted to this motor allowed slightly more
> than double the power handling capacity.
> The new voice coil is slightly longer,
> allowing a small amount of improvement to
> Xmax. Cone suspension components are more
> compliant than original as well.
Well, that's not what your own figures are
telling you: they paint pretty much the
opposite picture.
If we assume the T/S figure you are providing
are remotely realistic as are those I have for
the stock versions, we can compare them and
extrapolate a lot of information. Starting
with:
Uncle Stock
Phil's Unit
Fs: 16 Hz 16 Hz
Vas: 168 ft^3 120 ft^3
5900 L 4800 L
Qms: 2.87 2.61
Qes: 0.36 0.3
Qts: 0.32 0.27
Re: 4.6 4
First, look at your Vas: it's 20% LOWER
in your rebuilt version: the suspension
is, by your own figures, LESS compliant.
And since you claim the same resonant
frequency, that's only possible if the
mass is GREATER, not less.
>From these numbers, we can extrapolate the
electromechanical parameters for each:
Uncle Stock
Phil's Unit
Mms: 205 g 176 g
Cms: 0.48 mm/N 0.48 mm/N
Rms: 7.17 kg/s 6.78 kg/s
Bl: 16.2 N/A 15.4 N/A
> Somewhere along with all the
> improvements,
I'd call them "changes," because,
objectively, your figure point neither
to improvement nor decline in performance.
> we lacked 1 dB of sensitivity compared
> against the original.
And that's perfectly consistent with all
your other figures: basically, if you reduce
your cone area (which you claim) and you
increase your moving mass (which, in effect,
you also claim), and you don't change your Bl
product much (which you also implicitly claim),
AND you increase your DC resistance (which
you also claim), your efficiency MUST go down.
Indeed, here's what the derived reference
efficiency ends up being:
Uncle Stock
Phil's Unit
n0: 5.2% 7.8%
Sens: 99.1 dB/W/M 100.9 dB/W/m
> Had hoped that this would be augmented
> as well.
No, not if you make the area less, the cone
heavier and stick more resistance in the
voice coil, you don't.
> Although I don't listen at high average spl,
> any headroom for transients is always welcome.
So, once again, given that the singular advantage
such an enormous driver is SPL (except for its
abysmal XMax performance, even in your modified
case), why bother? You have not expressed any
identifiable advantage to these drivers, modified
or otherwise. Given their bandwidth, and given
how you've crossed them over, the transient
performance is certain to be pretty awful.
> All acoustic response measurements double
> checked with RTS analyser and oscilloscope
> using calibratred pair of phase matched
> condenser microphones traceable to NRC
> standards.
To be honest and not meaning to be insulting,
but I am not impressed. First of all, what
is an "RTS analyzer." I've been doing this
stuff for well over a third of a century,
and I ain't ever come across something that
refers to itself as an "RTS analyzer."
Secondly, an oscilloscope is essentially
useless for measuring and evaluating these
sorts of systems, other than to display
pretty green spaghetti lines.
Lastly, I know of no condenser mikes that
are traceable to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The NRC has nothing to do with
microphones or acoustics standards and such.
And "phase matched? Well, since microphones
are pretty much minimum-phase devices, any
pair of microphones that are frequency-
response matched must, by definition, be
phase-response matched. Point being, "phase-
matched NRC standards traceable" microphones
sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook to this
person.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
Sorry, a typo that needs correcting:
> From these numbers, we can extrapolate the
> electromechanical parameters for each:
>
> Uncle Stock
> Phil's Unit
> Cms: 0.48 mm/N 0.56 mm/N
I inadvertantly repeated the same figures
for mechanical compliance (Cms), above are
the corrected figures.
John Stone
"dpierce.ca...@gmail.com" <dpierce.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lastly, I know of no condenser mikes that
> are traceable to the Nuclear Regulatory
> Commission. The NRC has nothing to do with
> microphones or acoustics standards and such.
> And "phase matched? Well, since microphones
> are pretty much minimum-phase devices, any
> pair of microphones that are frequency-
> response matched must, by definition, be
> phase-response matched. Point being, "phase-
> matched NRC standards traceable" microphones
> sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook to this
> person.
Could he be referring to the National Research Council (NRC) in Ottawa,
Canada?
harpm...@sympatico.ca
Your Vas figure for the stock driver is incorrect.
Stock EV-30w Vas is 210 cubic feet
This was confirmed when evaluating two possible purchases of 30w
drivers that were in operating condition. The only reason I did not
purchase either of them was the absolutely ridiculous price being
asked.
RTS analyser is a "Real Time Spectrum" analyser that is capable of
generating test tones to the sound system being tested, and displaying
the real time results of what the sound system is reproducing. The
relative amplitude, or sound pressure levels of the reproduced tones
vs the generated test tones is provided in increments of 1/24 octave
from 5 Hz to 24 kHz.
The oscilloscope may only produce "spaghetti lines" for you, but it
can be a remarkable display of the reproduced test tone. The
individual sound waves can be frozen on screen and inspected for
distortions modifying the signal.
NRC refers to the National Research Council of Canada, and the
particular department is the Acoustical Standards and Calibration
Services. When measuring devices are calibrated to standards
traceable to the NRC, it is certain any results are accurate.
Best regards,
Phil Simpson
harpm...@sympatico.ca
If you have been working in loudspeakers for a third of a century
without using any real time spectrum analysis gear, you really would
benefit from giving it a try. Instant, accurate feedback of the
results of experimentation is a fantastic aid.
Here's a link to get you onto a computer version that is quite decent.
http://www.trueaudio.com/rta_abt1.htm
It also has an oscilloscope feature that can display some of the
benefits of the use of this analysis device.
Best regards,
Phil Simpson
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> On 3/13/09 9:31 AM, in article gpdqne02...@news4.newsguy.com,
>
> "dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com" <dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lastly, I know of no condenser mikes that
> > are traceable to the Nuclear Regulatory
> > Commission.
>
> Research Council (NRC) in Ottawa, Canada?
Could be, hadn't thought of that.
RoninTO
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:14:28 -0700, RoninTO wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK Sonnova since you made such a great recommendation on the TC-7510
(more on that later) I am going to seek out a pair of CLX's to listen
to. Do you know of a dealer in the NY State / Buffalo area that would
have a pair on the floor. I will phone the dealers in my area but
chances are there will not be dealer in Toronto or Canada with these
speakers. Our market is 10 times smaller than the US
market...frustrating.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> Hello dpierce,
>
> Your Vas figure for the stock driver is incorrect.
>
> Stock EV-30w Vas is 210 cubic feet
Yes, if you look at my figures, you'll
see that that is also a typo. In my haste
I reversed the figures as well, since
210 ft^3 = 5900L and 168 ft^3=4800L
This still ignores the fact that,
despite your assumption that the new
drivers are more compliant and less massive,
your T/S parameters indicate the opposite
is true.
> The oscilloscope may only produce "spaghetti lines" for you, but it
> can be a remarkable display of the reproduced test tone. The
> individual sound waves can be frozen on screen and inspected for
> distortions modifying the signal.
Not very well. Some of us actually have the
facilities of mesuring distorion directly,
and need not depend upon visual interpretation
of oscilloscope traces. None of my colleagues
in the loudspeaker design business would
even consider using on oscilloscope for
such purposes.
> When measuring devices are calibrated to standards
> traceable to the NRC, it is certain any results are
> accurate.
Actually, having, in fact, run a calibration
lab some time ago, this is not certain at
all, because such certainty assumes standardized
repreatable and tesable use of the equipment
as well. Neither your "RTS" nor your oscilloscope
are capable of providing such assurances.
Franco Del Principe
> OK people it is time to weigh in on an old debate. I usually get the
> itch to upgrade my speakers every 5 years. Since speakers are one of
> the most important element of a stereo system I would like to know the
> best sounding speakers you have ever had the pleasure of hearing or
> owning. Money will not be a factor in this exercise.
>
After so many votes for the Martin Logan I thought it's time to chime in
from good old Europe ;-)
One of the most thrilling combinations I heard at a show here in
Switzerland was a pair of Dynaudio Evidence driven by Krell Monoblocks.
The program material was, I think, Diana Krall.
The most impressive combo was a pair of Cabasse Karissima with a 4-way
coaxial driver, powered by Nagra tube gear. The program material was
Jimmy Hendrix. The show was simply breathtaking!
Personally, I own a pair of Rowen R3 2-way floor standing bipolar
speakers driven by cheap NAD gear. Its sound is just simple pleasure for
15 years in a row now. And every now and then it gives me goose bumps...
Cheers
Franco
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
>
> If you have been working in loudspeakers
> for a third of a century without using
> any real time spectrum analysis gear,
> you really would benefit from giving it
> a try.
"RTS" is a somewhat unconventional usage,
generally they are referred to as "RTA".
And, while your concern is understood,
rest assured that RTA's are about the LEAST
sophisticated equipment I own and use on
quite a regular basis, thank you. The
problem with any RTA or similar contrivance
is that all phse and transient information
is, by their very nature, lost.
Instead, I have 4 different wide-bandwidth
MLS-based systems taht I use regularly. They
have substantial advantages over RTAs in
that they are substantially more accurate,
and preserve all signal information.
> Here's a link to get you onto a computer
> version that is quite decent.
>
> http://www.trueaudio.com/rta_abt1.htm
Thanks you, but I reviewed that for a
professional publication nearly 5 years
ago, so I'm already quite familiar with it.
Trying looking up DRA MLSSA for something
that's better suited to the task.
Sonnova
(in article <gpeij...@news1.newsguy.com>):
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
> OK Sonnova since you made such a great recommendation on the TC-7510
> (more on that later) I am going to seek out a pair of CLX's to listen
> to. Do you know of a dealer in the NY State / Buffalo area that would
> have a pair on the floor. I will phone the dealers in my area but
> chances are there will not be dealer in Toronto or Canada with these
> speakers. Our market is 10 times smaller than the US
> market...frustrating.
You'll have to check on the M-L website for a M-L dealer in New York State,
or in your local Canadian area. Being on the Left Coast myself, I don't know
too much about goings-on east of here, at least audio-wise, anyway.
BTW, I replaced the Burr-Brown OP-627s with the new Natty LME49710 in my
Assemblage (Sonic Frontiers) DAC 2.6 as I said I would. The new op-amps make
quite a difference. The LME49710s have orders of magnitude lower distortion
and have a higher slew rate, symmetrical slew, and much lower noise than do
the OP-627s. The result is more and better bottom end (!), much cleaner
presentation. The lower distortion was immediately as in instantly
noticeable. I had a friend swap the two sets of op-amps back and forth
several times without me knowing which was which to make sure that I wasn't
suffering from the "new toy" effect , and I was able to pick out the
LME49710s every time. The difference was that profound! Now my DAC2.6 is the
best sounding DAC I've heard. While the TC-7510 is still good, it pales in
comparison to my Assemblage, and before I swapped Op-Amps, I thought the
TC-7510 was the better of the two (It still beats-out the Benchmark DAC1).
Sonnova
(in article <gpen3...@news5.newsguy.com>):
I'm not at all convinced that an O'scope is capable of very meaningful
distortion figures. While it can certainly show something like a crossover
notch in a solid-state push-pull amplifier (like the old Dynaco ST-120 before
Dynaco revised it), I don't see how it could do much for speaker distortion,
even with sine waves (maybe it could show SOME anomalies using square waves,
but then the question arises, how would one interpret what one sees?)
Andrew Barss
FWIW, I' rank the B&W 800 series (I foget the specific model) as the best
I've yet heard. Stunning.
-- Andy BArss
[ We welcome further contributions to this thread, but perhaps
more substantive comments, criticisms, reviews, and so forth
would be helpful? -- dsr ]
C. Leeds
outstanding. I've never heard a better sounding speaker system in my room.
UnclePhil
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:35:17 -0700, dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com wrote
> (in article <gpen3501...@news5.newsguy.com>):
It really depends on how intimate you are with the tool, and how you
visualise the anomalies to catagorise the type of distortion from the
original waveform. These are indicators, clues, perhaps signposts of
detection. However, nothing can compare with the ultimate measurement
before our own ears, and our own perceptions. Realism is an elusive
state of perception
Best regards,
Phil Simpson
Sonnova
(in article <721su5F...@mid.individual.net>):
> Although long out of production, the Infinity IRS Beta system is still
> outstanding. I've never heard a better sounding speaker system in my room.
>
They were damn good in their day - if you could keep the LEMIMS EMIMs, EMITs
and SEMITs working. I had a pair years ago, and learned how to fix the pesky
things myself. Sometimes one could fix the diaphragms with a soldering iron
(mostly the foil cracked at the junction with the connection terminal and
could easily be fixed with a piece of copper "solder-wick") other times one
had to order a whole new diaphragm from Infinity. The hard part was putting
the things back together because both the front and back plates had magnets
in opposition, and they refused to line up properly without a lot of
"persuasion". This was especially a problem with the LEMIM (Large
Electro-Magnetic Induction Midrange) because the panels were so large.
Eventually, I got tired of the chore, and traded my IRS Betas for a set of
Magnaplanar Tympany IIIs with their EIGHT panels! I was happy with them for
years (except that they didn't have the bass of the Infinities. But then,
I've owned nothing since that did) until the glue Manepan used to fix the
voice "grid" to the diaphragms started to eat through the aluminum wire.
Sonnova
(in article <gpgfu...@news5.newsguy.com>):
Well, I've been looking at an oscilloscope screen most of my professional
life, and while it is an invaluable tool for analyzing logic circuits,
looking at TV waveforms such as flyback pulses and color signals, I've never
found one particularly useful for audio except to align FM tuners, Align
analog tape heads, and checking phase. It isn't very good for measuring
level, for instance, an audio VTM being a much better tool for that. As I
said earlier, it won't show anything but the grossest of distortion (like
clipping) and phase shift over frequency in amplifiers (and I suspect in
speakers as well, as long as the microphone connected to it is reasonably
decent) and again, the better tool is a distortion analyzer. I suppose one
could use a dual-trace scope to look at both the driving signal from the
amplifier on one trace, and the speaker output (using a microphone) on the
other and compare the two. Other than to show one that the speaker is far
from an accurate transducer (something that one already knows) I don't see
what kind of meaningful, quantitative information that one could glean from
such a comparison.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
Having owned some very good oscilloscopes,
and run a calibration lab, I am VERY familiar
with them and their limitations. That's why I
and no one else in the loudspeaker business
uses oscilloscopes for measuring loudspeakers.
They are simply the wrong tool for the job,
unless you simply have nothing else or are
new at the task.
If professional in the loudspeaker design
business wants to measure distorion, just
about the LAST choice is an oscilloscope.
Anything from FFT-based spectrum analyzers
to dedicated distortion measuring tools are
faster, more accurate, easier to use, in
other words, better for the task.
> These are indicators, clues, perhaps
> signposts of detection.
And that's it: clues only, and pretty crude
ones at that. They are useless for any
reliable, repeatable and accurate quantitative
measurements. For that reason, no one in the
business uses them for these purposes.
> However, nothing can compare with the
> ultimate measurement before our own ears,
> and our own perceptions.
While that's quite different than your claim,
it is, I suppose, one way of wriggling out
of that kettle of soup.
> Realism is an elusive state of perception
So is the accurate quantitative evaluation of
loudspeakers, when one doesn't use the right
tools and/or uses them improperly without an
understanding of both their capabilities AND
their limitations.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> Yes, if you look at my figures, you'll
> see that that is also a typo. In my haste
> I reversed the figures as well, since
> 210 ft^3 = 5900L and 168 ft^3=4800L
To clear up any misperceptions resulting
directly for my penchant for fast typing and
not reading what I typed, allow me to repost
the figure for the EV 30W driver parameter
comparisons with the typos (hopefully)
corrected:
Uncle Stock
Phil's Unit
Fs: 16 Hz 16 Hz
Vas: 168 ft^3 210 ft^3
4800 L 5900 L
Qms: 2.87 2.61
Qes: 0.36 0.3
Qts: 0.32 0.27
Re: 4.6 4
Mms: 205 g 176 g
Cms: 0.48 mm/N 0.56 mm/N
Rms: 7.17 kg/s 6.78 kg/s
Bl: 16.2 N/A 15.4 N/A
n0: 5.2% 7.8%
Sens: 99.1 dB/W/M 100.9 dB/W/m
Now, to summarize again: the claim was
that Uncle Phil's rebuilt 30Ws have more
compliance and less mass, but the Thiele-
Small parameters he posted contradicts
those claims: they indicate the suspension
is less compliant and the moving mass is
greater. This is further confirmed by his
statement that he somehow lost a dB or
so of efficiency in the rebuild.
In summary, the original 30W was designed
in the days when EV and others were unaware
of the power in the T/S model, when most
driver and speaker design was empirical
guesswork, at best. There are fundamental
limitations in the basic concept of a 30"
driver AND in the specific implementation
of the EV 30W, most notably in the motor
structure. One can rebuild them until the
cows come home: the basic concepts are still
fundamentally flawed.
The basic knowledge that there are a pair of
30 inch woofers in the room can well be
thrilling and excilerating, but that doesn't
change the fact that, even rebuild, they are
poor-performing, ill-designed relics of a time
that is thankfully long past. If the desire
is for more accurate, higher-level, lower
distortion, wider bandwidth, bass, there are
any number of far less impressive but better
suited, more modern and better designed means
of doing it.
And pretty much every one of them was designed
with a much higher level of sophisticated
instrumentation than an oscilloscope and a
real time analyzer.
Doug McDonald
> RoninTO <ronald...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about the B&W 800 series or the new
> : Quads.
>
> FWIW, I' rank the B&W 800 series (I foget the specific model) as the best
> I've yet heard. Stunning.
>
>
When they first came out, I almost bought the original B&W 800. It
was competition for the then-new KEF 105. I liked both,
but in the end I thought the B&Ws were overly bright, and the price
of the KEFs was just to enticing, and I have been living
with them lovingly for 30 years.
But they are not as good sounding, in my room, as a pair of home-made
(from some then-well-regarded recipe) speakers that were tri-amped
with active corssover before the amps. In their room, those could
actually sound like the real thing, including a truly real
soundstage.
Doug McDonald
UnclePhil
>From reflecting upon our correspondence with some care, I believe
there may be a disconnect in terms of conclusive facts, or information
regarding my installation of the much modified, rebuilt EV-30W
drivers.
Perhaps some of our misalignment of view may be due to the lack of
total disclosure of the re-engineering process that took place over
two years ago in my workshop. Some of my previous statements may have
been somewhat less than totally descriptive of the evolution of the
rebuilding/modifications that occurred. When contributing to this
thread, I was not intentionally looking to engage in an argument
regarding the development of my subwoofer system. Had I been so
inclined, I may have reviewed the notes and consulted with my valued
co-conspirator to have all technical details at hand. Or I might have
saved myself the unnecessary irritation and just not contributed at
all.
Further, I don't know why I feel compelled to debate the results of
the project, because it really makes no difference to what I actually
measure, and what I hear in my home. I am satisfied that the results
that I arrived at are absolutely valid regardless of your writings.
However, I am an engineer, with an engineer's mindset, so I will
attempt to illuminate.
- I did state the following,
(beginning of quoted text of Phil, earlier in this dialogue)
"My 30w drivers have been rebuilt from scratch with only the frames
being original, but with some structural mods as well to improve
strength and reduce resonance with bimetal techniques. When looking
for these drivers I was unable to find any with a good surround, cone,
or voice coil for that matter. Had to reinvent them a bit from
necessity as they would not serve anything as received."
(end of quoted text segment)
***Note that the drivers were rebuilt from scratch with only the
frames being original. The remaining structural parts were machined
to accommodate alterations to the motor assembly, the frame rigidity
and neutrality, and the suspension components.
- I also stated the following.
(beginning of quoted text of Phil, earlier in this dialogue)
"I purchased "basket case" drivers with sound frames. During the
rebuilding process, we employed alternate technologies to hopefully
improve the deficiencies of the 30w driver in terms of motor, moving
mass, cone distortion, surrounds, frame integrity and resonance
taming."
(end of quoted text segment)
***Note that basically everything in the driver package was looked
upon for possibilities, and explored/developed and deployed.
- I also stated the following.
(beginning of quoted text of Phil, earlier in this dialogue)
"The new suspension system changed the cone diameter a little. The
new cone is similar in material to original spec, but less massive,
and more rigid. The new voice coil adapted to this motor allowed
slightly more than double the power handling capacity. The new voice
coil is slightly longer, allowing a small amount of improvement to
Xmax. Cone suspension components are more compliant than original as
well."
(end of quoted text segment)
***There may be assignable causes for your misinterpretation that I
have not considered, but the gist of this statement I believe is true.
-You stated the following.
(beginning of quoted text of dpierce, earlier in this dialogue)
"And that's perfectly consistent with all your other figures:
basically, if you reduce your cone area (which you claim) and you
increase your moving mass (which, in effect,you also claim), and you
don't change your Bl product much (which you also implicitly claim),
AND you increase your DC resistance (which you also claim), your
efficiency MUST go down."
(end of quoted text segment)
***The Bl product must have changed notably due to the modifications
to the motor that I stated earlier.
I did not implicitly claim anything about not changing the Bl
product. "Implicitly" infers a state of no doubt. Upon reflection, I
cannot think of any instance in our dialogue where I may have mislead
you implicitly to believe that the Bl product was somehow immune to
change.
***Note: The magnets are changed, the pole piece is changed, the top
plate of the motor structure is changed. My colleague, who steered
the development of all the motor changes, and wound the new voice
coils, instructed me to machine changes to the motor structure to
enable his vision of how the motor assembly could better serve.
I do not know and have no documentation regarding the magnets that
were selected. I believe that we installed magnets that were more
powerful and larger than the originals. This was necessary as
explained to me that due to the change in voice coil winding and
change of length, that it would be necessary to augment the strength
of the magnets and change the pole piece and top plate. (I could
question my colleague regarding this if you feel the need to know, and
I feel suitable compelled.)
In regards to the validity of the measurements to qualify our efforts,
I am not concerned in the least regarding your pointed, disparaging
attempts to discredit or marginalize our results. It's irritating,
but not in the least meaningful or compelling.
Here's one of the simplest tests that we used to evaluate results
after changing any porting, box volume, horn sections, etc... Sweep
the frequency range incrementally from 15Hz to 50Hz in graduations of
single Hz, equal amplitude tones. Measure the respective amplitude
levels of the reproduced tones and examine linearity and lower
frequency extension limit in this Hz, by Hz incremental comparison.
Another simple method was to feed bandwidth specific pink noise to
"blanket" the operational range of the drivers. This basically
saturates the driver, and tasks it with reproducing it's entire range
at equal amplitude, at once. We would capture the results with the
real time spectrum analyser and consider the resulting reproduction in
terms of linearity and low frequency extension limit.
There were several other tests that my colleague employed, but I am
not up to writing a book on this. Most all of the tests also included
repeat runs at increased acoustic power levels up to the level of the
driver losing response considerably at the lowest frequencies.
Ballpark assessments were mostly made with a very nicely featured
handheld dBa meter. The oscilloscope or the real time spectrum
analyser were employed as a second check. For these checks, I used my
large diaphragm recording microphones that have been calibrated and
are accurate. Measured the drivers on axis, and at 15 degree
intervals in the vertical and horizontal axis.(this, I thought was a
bit of overkill for testing) For the final technical assessment we
rented the NRC "last word" phase matched microphones and observed
prescribed procedure for handling, setup and deployment of the mics
when used with real time spectrum analysis.
Finally, I play piano and organ, and a few other instruments. I have
played since I was 4 years old, and have played continuously over my
years. I have an intimate knowledge in audio and tactile feedback
from the instruments that I perform with as to HOW THEY SOUND. There
are low notes on piano that defy many speaker systems to reproduce
faithfully. There are low notes on pipe organ that absolutely defy
most every speaker system to reproduce faithfully.
This deployment of the rebuilt/modified EV-30W drivers does more
justice to the faithful reproduction of the lowest octave than any
other that I have witnessed.
By the way, there are a plethora of further facts and details
pertaining to this project that will likely never be made public on
this thread as I have much more valued pursuits to chase, rather than
a newsgroup debate. In other words, I have much better things to do
than engage in a technical peeing contest.
Best regards,
Phil Simpson
Sonnova
(in article <724l1tF...@mid.individual.net>):
> Hello Mr. dpierce,
>
>> From reflecting upon our correspondence with some care, I believe
> there may be a disconnect in terms of conclusive facts, or information
> regarding my installation of the much modified, rebuilt EV-30W
> drivers.
>
> Perhaps some of our misalignment of view may be due to the lack of
> total disclosure of the re-engineering process that took place over
> two years ago in my workshop. Some of my previous statements may have
> been somewhat less than totally descriptive of the evolution of the
> rebuilding/modifications that occurred. When contributing to this
> thread, I was not intentionally looking to engage in an argument
> regarding the development of my subwoofer system. Had I been so
> inclined, I may have reviewed the notes and consulted with my valued
> co-conspirator to have all technical details at hand. Or I might have
> saved myself the unnecessary irritation and just not contributed at
> all.
>
> Further, I don't know why I feel compelled to debate the results of
> the project, because it really makes no difference to what I actually
> measure, and what I hear in my home. I am satisfied that the results
> that I arrived at are absolutely valid regardless of your writings.
> However, I am an engineer, with an engineer's mindset, so I will
> attempt to illuminate.
Please understand, that this is a discussion forum. When subjects of this
nature are discussed, naturally, questions arise. When the facts don't seem
to tally with a poster's description of the event or the results, then those
questions are, of course, going to be asked. I don't think anyone here is
debating you with an eye to discrediting either you or your words, but merely
to gain clarification and insight into what seems to be a fascinating odyssey
of discovery on your part.
> - I did state the following,
>
> (beginning of quoted text of Phil, earlier in this dialogue)
> "My 30w drivers have been rebuilt from scratch with only the frames
> being original, but with some structural mods as well to improve
> strength and reduce resonance with bimetal techniques. When looking
> for these drivers I was unable to find any with a good surround, cone,
> or voice coil for that matter. Had to reinvent them a bit from
> necessity as they would not serve anything as received."
> (end of quoted text segment)
>
>
> ***Note that the drivers were rebuilt from scratch with only the
> frames being original. The remaining structural parts were machined
> to accommodate alterations to the motor assembly, the frame rigidity
> and neutrality, and the suspension components.
Did you not use the unit's original ceramic magnets? If you say that you used
only the frame, that infers that you also replaced the magnet structure.
Since speaker magnets are pretty application specific, I would think that
this would be very difficult to do, especially in so large a driver. If you
did replace the magnets, I'd love to understand the process by which you
accomplished this.
>
>
> - I also stated the following.
>
> (beginning of quoted text of Phil, earlier in this dialogue)
> "I purchased "basket case" drivers with sound frames. During the
> rebuilding process, we employed alternate technologies to hopefully
> improve the deficiencies of the 30w driver in terms of motor, moving
> mass, cone distortion, surrounds, frame integrity and resonance
> taming."
> (end of quoted text segment)
>
>
> ***Note that basically everything in the driver package was looked
> upon for possibilities, and explored/developed and deployed.
>
>
> - I also stated the following.
>
> (beginning of quoted text of Phil, earlier in this dialogue)
> "The new suspension system changed the cone diameter a little. The
> new cone is similar in material to original spec, but less massive,
> and more rigid. The new voice coil adapted to this motor allowed
> slightly more than double the power handling capacity. The new voice
> coil is slightly longer, allowing a small amount of improvement to
> Xmax. Cone suspension components are more compliant than original as
> well."
> (end of quoted text segment)
OK, seems to me that voice coil length as well as cone travel is proscribed,
largely by the depth of the "well" formed by the center pole piece and the
magnet surround. Lengthening the voice coil is either going to result in
limiting cone travel (because the new, longer voice coil will bottom-out in
the well sooner than would a shorter coil) or the new section of the longer
voice-coil would be outside of the coil gap's magnetic field, in which case
it would seem to me that it would add nothing to the speaker in terms of
capability. I'd love to understand this aspect of your modification better.
How DO you increase the EFFECTIVE length of a voice coil without one of the
two aforementioned limitations occurring?
Wow. This looks to involve a MAJOR redesign of the speaker. What is the
weight of the new magnet compared to the old? Was there any difference in
magnet material? After all, magnet technology has improved considerably since
the E-V 30W was designed. Was the voice-coil gap "well" deeper than the
original? Where does one source custom speaker magnets like that? Is the new
voice coil edge-would like I seem to recall that the original was?
> In regards to the validity of the measurements to qualify our efforts,
> I am not concerned in the least regarding your pointed, disparaging
> attempts to discredit or marginalize our results. It's irritating,
> but not in the least meaningful or compelling.
I don't think that anyone here is trying to marginalize either your efforts
or your results. It's just that such a major undertaking is understandably
somewhat unusual and begs many more questions than your posts have provided
answers for. Driver design and construction is a complex process utilizing
many processes that are simply beyond the capability of even the most well
equipped home shop. When I hear that someone who is not a speaker
manufacturer has redesigned and re-engineered a large driver like the E-C
30W, it certainly peaks my interest as to why, how and what. I suspect that
others here harbor a similar curiosity.
> Here's one of the simplest tests that we used to evaluate results
> after changing any porting, box volume, horn sections, etc... Sweep
> the frequency range incrementally from 15Hz to 50Hz in graduations of
> single Hz, equal amplitude tones. Measure the respective amplitude
> levels of the reproduced tones and examine linearity and lower
> frequency extension limit in this Hz, by Hz incremental comparison.
Assuming that the microphone used has flat response in that region, such a
test is useful. The results would be much more meaningful if taken in an
anechoic chamber or even outdoors on a still day, but nonetheless, it would
be useful to know.
> Another simple method was to feed bandwidth specific pink noise to
> "blanket" the operational range of the drivers. This basically
> saturates the driver, and tasks it with reproducing it's entire range
> at equal amplitude, at once. We would capture the results with the
> real time spectrum analyser and consider the resulting reproduction in
> terms of linearity and low frequency extension limit.
OK.
Like I said, your project has peaked the interest of several here. Perhaps an
article for a magazine like "Speaker Builder" (is that even still in
publication?) is warranted by your experience.
C. Leeds
> They were damn good in their day - if you could keep the LEMIMS EMIMs, EMITs
> and SEMITs working. I had a pair years ago, and learned how to fix the pesky
> things myself. Sometimes one could fix the diaphragms with a soldering iron
> (mostly the foil cracked at the junction with the connection terminal and
> could easily be fixed with a piece of copper "solder-wick") other times one
> had to order a whole new diaphragm from Infinity...
I'm happy to say that I've never experienced any problems with the
midrange panels. The woofers suffered from foam surround rot, so I
replaced all eight of them. One nice thing about that is I got the
upgraded control woofer accelerometers in the process. I'm the original
owner of this speaker system and I've never heard anything else that
comes close... except the IRS V.
Sonnova
(in article <gpm4t...@news7.newsguy.com>):
There's no doubt that the bass from the Infinity IRS Beta is awesome (and I
hate to use that overworked word, but here, nothing else will do) as only 8
12" woofers could make it! I've never heard anything even remotely like it
in my home. The rest of the system, I found to be OK for the time, but when I
traded the Betas for the Tympani IIICs , I found the latter to be much more
integrated with smoother midrange, and a cleaner top-end than the Infinitys.
But brother, that BASS! I missed it for years -probably still do.