I have seen a couple of threads lately that refer to types and sorts of
equipment that near-as-make-no-difference when it comes to the actual
sound produced. In my opinion, they include, but are not limited to:

Speaker Cables: Within the broad universe of typical home use, speaker
cables have no impact whatsoever on sound produced, roughly along these
lines:

6 feet (2 meters) or less per run: 16 gauge Zip is fine.
10 feet (3 meters) or less per run: 14ga
10-20 feet (3-7 meters): 12ga
And so forth.

20 feet of 12-2 stranded line-cord will run less than $0.75/foot. Add
$5 for fancy spade-lugs or banana plugs.

Two 20-foot runs: $40.

Interconnects (AKA Patch Cords): a decent set of $5/meter patch-cords
is as good as anything else available excepting _very_ specific
conditions such as may require special shielding or capacitance or
impedance matching.
Assume the worst case: Power-amp, Pre-amp, CD, Tuner, TT, Tape = five
(5) sets of cords. Assume 2 meters per cord: $50.

Hospital-Grade Receptacle: $5

Line Cords: Included with equipment

Total peripherals cost (that actually carry power or signal): $95.

Speaker Stands: Furniture items. Chosen 100% for aesthetics.
Speaker Cord Towers: No value

CD Players: Any unit with a decent transport and up-to-date DAC Chips
will have playback capacities in excess of the quality of what is
recorded on the CD. There is no need for any signal-processing elements
beyond these very-basics. There is certainly no need for outboard DAC
units (excepting needs for additional/other purposes than CD playback),
belt-drive transports or anything along those lines.

Analog Tuners: A moderate tuner will do more with an excellent antenna
than an excellent tuner will do with a moderate antenna. Excellent
antennas cost far less than excellent tuners.

Turntables:

a) first value: Protect the vinyl
b1) second value: Protect the cartridge and stylus
b2) third value: Accurate speed
c) excellent isolation
d) ease of operation
e) ease of care

The above can be had new for less than $400 these days. And when
coupled with a decent cartridge/stylus are as good as what they are
playing, or better.

Pre-amps: After a certain point, improvements are inaudible. That point
is pretty quickly reached. So, pick a pre-amp for features and
convenience once its basic quality is established.

Power Amps: NOW there is meat to chew on an choices to be made. But
again, after a certain point, basic quality is established. After that
point, one is buying headroom. And headroom IS critical.

Speakers: THIS is the critical item and that single item that will have
the most and longest lasting impact on the listening experience. If
money is to be spent, it is to be spent here.

A few myths for discussion:

I will state my opinions (and they are only that):

Single-driver, full range speakers aren't. That is unless one
re-defines "full range" and/or allows as much as a 10dB drop at the
limits of that range.

Good Bass is a function of moving air, as is good Treble. Moving enough
air to make a 30Hz organ note is on a different order of magnitude than
moving enough air to make a 4200Hz piccolo note (and all their
respective overtones). Asking a single driver to do both,
simultaneously, is simply silly. However, it does take a certain amount
of power to do either competently. And to make near-live
classical-music concert volume levels takes a good deal of power...
just to move the air.

Getting to: Small Drivers, however long the voice-coil excursion are
inherently limited at bass frequencies. "Large" drivers are similarly
limited at treble frequencies due to their mass. In part the physics of
all this explain the wretched (and very seldom published) response
curves of most so-called 'full range' single drivers.

So: If I were to be forced (with a gun to my head) to purchase a 'new'
audio system today, I would start with the speakers, next to
amplification, and with what's left move on from there. The choice of
speakers would dictate the minimum power-output from the amp, NOT the
other way around. However, an infinitely powerful amplifier will drive
-any- speaker. I would purchase standard cables & interconnects. I
would change my receptacle to a hospital-grade unit (well, I do that
for most things in the house anyway, it is simply common-sense). I
would not mess around with the line cords.

Sadly, it is also my opinion that today 'audio' is dictated by what is
heard on computer speakers. Anything that sounds even moderately better
than the computer is instantly "good". I find this passing strange, as
the improvements in speaker materials, magnets, design and
manufacturing processes and even cross-over design should have led to
very, very, very good speakers at relatively moderate costs as compared
to 20-or-more years ago. But, at least from what I have seen, the trend
is towards speakers designed seemingly just for aesthetics, flea-power
amps and inaccessible ergonomics. More so, elsctronics have leaped
ahead in many subtle ways, such that substantial clean, quiet power
should also be readily available at very moderate costs. In some cases
it is. In many cases, it is not.

THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, of course. But there is also a disproportionate
amount of expensive ***** out there.

I also respectfully submit that audio and video are in many significant
ways mutually exclusive excepting the concert hall.

So, now that I am on the outside of the limb and sawing briskly, what
do you think?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

p.s.: Gold is a rather poor conductor as compared to copper or silver.
However, it does not corrode easily. THAT is why it is picked for
connectors. That and aesthetics. Silver is the lowest-loss conductor of
all.


--

In article ,
" wrote:

snip
Turntables:

a) first value: Protect the vinyl
b1) second value: Protect the cartridge and stylus
b2) third value: Accurate speed
c) excellent isolation
d) ease of operation
e) ease of care

I would add to your a) How it sounds.

The above can be had new for less than $400 these days.

Yes, there are some good TT setups for around that price. Much better
sounding can also be had.


--

wrote:
I have seen a couple of threads lately that refer to types and sorts of
equipment that near-as-make-no-difference when it comes to the actual
sound produced. In my opinion, they include, but are not limited to:

Speaker Cables: Within the broad universe of typical home use, speaker
cables have no impact whatsoever on sound produced, roughly along these
lines:

snip

These opinions are certainly reasonable opinions. As presented they
appear to represent your belief and opinion...

There is little doubt that one can achieve sound of pretty good quality
on the cheap, using things like zip cord as speaker cable. There is
little doubt that one *might* spend more money to buy a "speaker cable"
and actually acheive inferior performance compared to zip cord (or any
other signal chain element you mentioned).

To say that zip cord *objectively* when measured does the best job of
transferring the original signal to an actual loudspeaker load (or maybe
even a resistor load) is not correct.

This whole thing is just not quite so simple - otherwise (as many have
noted) there would be only one cable, one amplifier, one speaker, etc...
nothwistanding preferences for various controls and "features." there
are differences no matter how objectively good any given components
performance measures, and in many instances these differences are audible.

If *you* don't hear a difference, or the "difference" doesn't matter to
you should you hear it, and/or you feel or do a test that shows one is
better than the other, so be it.

For those here who are 100% certain that "minute differences" in active
components - like opamps - are not audible, I encourage you to build up
a preamp stage using standard dual (voltage) opamps (as opposed to
current opamps) with plug in opamps. Also, you'll need to not have
electrolytic caps in the signal path, and use MF resistors, avoid a
standard pot in the gain control if you use one... then plug in
something like 5532 opamps and then compare to OPA2604, feel free to try
some others. See if you notice anything at all. For yuks try a 747 too.

BOTH opamps according to what the "objectivists" on this group are
likely to claim should have no audible differences.

I suspect you'd be likely to notice something or other... assuming the
rest of your system is objectively low in distortion as well...

Anyhow, you can certainly make sound and have a pretty good "hi-fi"
sound without spending an awful lot of money, but just as in virtually
everything in life better performance costs more and more as the
improvements become technically less and less - the only decision you as
a consumer need make is to determine your budgetary limiations, your WAF
(etc.), and then how much education/knowledge/measurement you are going
to apply toward identifying equipment choices.

For the most part those who work the hardest on the latter criteria
often proceed to build their own gear for the - that being the logical
consequence. The result is more cost effective, better targeted to their
specific needs and application, and generally higher in performance
(with a few exceptions - in which case you buy it).

Where people can and do get into trouble, and what so many
"objectivists" seem to be so angry about is people with limited
knowledge, relatively high discretionary budgets purchasing items with
exhorbitant price tags and questionable technical merit... but that has
little to do with the absolute nature of higher performance gear.

_-_-bear


--

I am not at all sure what you are attempting to write. Objectively,
fine-stranded silver suspended in liquid nitrogen will do the best job
of transfering signal-to-speaker. Even poor instruments will show that,
and amongst instruments used to test audio products, the ear is
far-and-away the least accurate, least objective and most easily
influenced by irrelevant issues.

Cables of any function are amongst those things that make the least
difference. Yes/No? Do they make more difference than the choice of
Speakers? Amplifier? CD Player? Cartridge? Stylus? Tuner? Pre-amp?
Turntable? Tape Deck? (That is after the most nominal basic quality
issues are satisfied)

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

Jenn:

You are absolutely correct, better sounding units can be had. Sadly,
the signal that they process is nearly always the weakest link in the
chain, despite closely held beliefs to the contrary. If one is
sufficiently lucky (and well-healed) enough to chase down *only* those
very few recordings that demand ultra-silent turntables coupled with
very high-end cartridges, then I can see spending more than my
arbitrary $400. But to be very blunt with you, and writing for myself,
I would prefer to spend those additional $$ on signal, not the means to
play it. So, if I am assured that my turntable(s) are SOTA as far as
protecting the vinyl and the cartridge(s) are concerned (and sound
pretty damned good besides), I will stop there.

At present, I am running a Revox B795 and a Rabco ST-8. The very first
time I heard a tangental tone-arm (1975), I was hooked and _will not_
go back.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

Actually, Bob, that is not the issue either.

"Objectivists" will accept testing of their contentions.
"Subjectivists" will not.

I choose not to subscribe to any form of 'revealed religion'. I feel
that double-blind testing is quite effective as an
exclusive/exclusionary process. Once unacceptable systems are excluded,
then in-house-testing of what remains (subjective) will be the final
screening factor.

Phase-distortion (as only one of many possible defects) does not
manifest in as short a period as blind testing permits... unless said
tests exceed 2 hours +/- per component, at least.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

wrote:
Jenn:

You are absolutely correct, better sounding units can be had. Sadly,
the signal that they process is nearly always the weakest link in the
chain, despite closely held beliefs to the contrary.

If one has a high quality system this is true. The recording is half
the battle in the recording/playback chain and the recording is the one
thing we have no control over whatsoever.

If one is
sufficiently lucky (and well-healed) enough to chase down *only* those
very few recordings that demand ultra-silent turntables coupled with
very high-end cartridges, then I can see spending more than my
arbitrary $400. But to be very blunt with you, and writing for myself,
I would prefer to spend those additional $$ on signal, not the means to
play it.


It's a matter of distribution of funds. Yeah, if one doesn't have the
budget for high end vinyl playback better to shoot for the middle and
spend the money on more records and CDs. I'm not sure what you mean by
"those very few recordings that demand ultra-silent turntables with
very high-end cartridges." Even bad recordings will benefit from better
playback equipment and better mastering and manufacturing.


So, if I am assured that my turntable(s) are SOTA as far as
protecting the vinyl and the cartridge(s) are concerned (and sound
pretty damned good besides), I will stop there.


Makes complete sense. OTOH should price not be an object there is
substantial room for improvement and that improvement will apply to all
your vinyl not just the best ones.



At present, I am running a Revox B795 and a Rabco ST-8. The very first
time I heard a tangental tone-arm (1975), I was hooked and _will not_
go back.




Scott


--

wrote in message ...
Jenn:

You are absolutely correct, better sounding units can be had. Sadly,
the signal that they process is nearly always the weakest link in the
chain, despite closely held beliefs to the contrary. If one is
sufficiently lucky (and well-healed) enough to chase down *only* those
very few recordings that demand ultra-silent turntables coupled with
very high-end cartridges, then I can see spending more than my
arbitrary $400. But to be very blunt with you, and writing for myself,
I would prefer to spend those additional $$ on signal, not the means to
play it. So, if I am assured that my turntable(s) are SOTA as far as
protecting the vinyl and the cartridge(s) are concerned (and sound
pretty damned good besides), I will stop there.

At present, I am running a Revox B795 and a Rabco ST-8. The very first
time I heard a tangental tone-arm (1975), I was hooked and _will not_
go back.


The irony, Peter, is that your gear cost about $3000 back in the early
seventies. Hardly budget gear.



--

In article ,
" wrote:

Jenn:

You are absolutely correct, better sounding units can be had. Sadly,
the signal that they process is nearly always the weakest link in the
chain, despite closely held beliefs to the contrary. If one is
sufficiently lucky (and well-healed) enough to chase down *only* those
very few recordings that demand ultra-silent turntables coupled with
very high-end cartridges, then I can see spending more than my
arbitrary $400. But to be very blunt with you, and writing for myself,
I would prefer to spend those additional $$ on signal, not the means to
play it. So, if I am assured that my turntable(s) are SOTA as far as
protecting the vinyl and the cartridge(s) are concerned (and sound
pretty damned good besides), I will stop there.

At present, I am running a Revox B795 and a Rabco ST-8. The very first
time I heard a tangental tone-arm (1975), I was hooked and _will not_
go back.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

I remember that TT and I remember being pretty impressed with the sound.

I recently bought a $1000 TT/arm/cartridge combo that sounds better than
anything I heard at the 4-500 level, and that, in my judgement, one had
to spend many thousands of dollars to better.


--

Phase Distortion: OK.

Using the most common analogy, consider pebbles dropped in still water.
Two pebbles dropped at different points and at different times will
propagate different ripples. When these ripples cross, they _may_ cause
interference with each other. That interference may add, cancel or
simply cross over one ripple to another. To the end that they add or
cancel, that is a source of distortion. So, multiple-driver speakers
that are not very carefully designed and whose crossovers are not
equally carefully considered *will* cause phase distortion.

Example A: A pair of speakers sounds *just great* in the audition room.
One brings them home and puts them in service. All of a sudden, one
finds oneself restless. Wanting to get up and 'run an errand', unable
to concentrate on the music for unknown reasons... Like-as-not, this is
due to the subtle phase distortion of the speakers causing a
near-subliminal discomfort. An extreme may be experienced by connecting
speakers out-of-phase and note the wretched results, even though each
speaker may sound fine alone.

Electronic crossover-notch distortion is largely the same thing and may
cause exactly the same effects again if not carefully addressed in the
design. Hence, electronics that look *great* on paper may sound like
glass in a blender at home. Going a bit further, poorly damped
turntables may be affected by speakers, even at relatively high
frequencies.

These are subtle effects that manifest in a general discomfort with a
system that is not necessarily obvious in a short test or in a
listening room with the usual distractions. But it is enough to stop
one reading while listening, make one restless... and in my opinion
perhaps the single best reason that ultimately 'subjective' testing is
necessary _always_. But, again, only *AFTER* the objective testing
filters out the universe of preferred items.

Now, this argument is also the single greatest point made by the
full-range, single driver crowd. They will state (with some accuracy)
that multiple-driver systems inevitably make a certain amount of this
distortion, as they are the functional equivalent of multiple stones
dropped in still water. And to the goal of all-from-one, quite
elaborate, usually fairly massive boxes need be designed to get to even
a semblance of bass... and quite often the top end of the treble is
also washed out. Then one sees demonstrations with solo voices, or
voices with very small instrumental accompanyment... source well-suited
to single-driver systems.

The best answer to that point is that even though a microphone records
at a single point, the sound recorded is from multiple points. So, with
careful design (and careful design ain't cheap), this can be addressed
so as to minimize the negative effects of multiple drivers _and_
actually reproduce much of the audible spectrum with reasonable
accuracy.

Harry: An aside to your (hopefully) good-humored crack on the cost of
my components: Even back in the 70s, when the Rabco ST-8 was 'new', I
paid far less than list-price for it. My first tangental tone-arm was a
Rabco SL-8E that I picked up at a stereo-store bankruptcy sale in 1976
for $20, machined down the arm to half its OEM weight and had a very
nice little unit (I worked in a machine-shop at the time). That was
stolen, and followed by the ST-8, purcased NIB, also at such a sale,
for $100 in 1979. I dumpster-dived for Ortophone MC-20 & MC-30
cartridges at that same location (also NIB), together with the powered
head-amp.

The Revox stuff.... well, I purchased four (4) of them from eBay, most
paid was $159, inclusive of shipping. Of those four, I made three
fully-functioning units, one with my son-in-law, and the other two
alternately in service here along with the ST-8 (yep, the same one
since 1979) depending on which cartridge I want. But the B790 is so
rarely used that it stays put away most of the time... even though it
is the 'better' of the two with a digital speed read-out.

And the Scott stuff (LK-150, LT-110, LC-21) were trades for
excess/duplicates on my end. As was the Dynaco stuff.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

wrote:
Phase Distortion: OK.

Now, this argument is also the single greatest point made by the
full-range, single driver crowd. They will state (with some accuracy)
that multiple-driver systems inevitably make a certain amount of this
distortion, as they are the functional equivalent of multiple stones
dropped in still water. And to the goal of all-from-one, quite
elaborate, usually fairly massive boxes need be designed to get to even
a semblance of bass... and quite often the top end of the treble is
also washed out. Then one sees demonstrations with solo voices, or
voices with very small instrumental accompanyment... source well-suited
to single-driver systems.


You have been going on about these alleged single driver speakers. I
only know of two companies that are actually making single driver
speakers, Sound Lab and Quad. None of those speakers have massive boxes
nor do they have washed out treble. What speakers are you refering to?




The best answer to that point is that even though a microphone records
at a single point, the sound recorded is from multiple points. So, with
careful design (and careful design ain't cheap), this can be addressed
so as to minimize the negative effects of multiple drivers _and_
actually reproduce much of the audible spectrum with reasonable
accuracy.


I don't see the micropone connection. With live music the interatcion
of musical instruments is part of the sound not a distortion artifact.
It is a big mistake to start comparing the nature of live performance
and playback on technical points. What is good for one is often quite
bad for the other.


Scott


--

Scott:

With all due respect, analyze the statement you just made:

With live music the interatcion
of musical instruments is part of the sound not a distortion artifact.
It is a big mistake to start comparing the nature of live performance
and playback on technical points. What is good for one is often quite
bad for the other.

Ya think??!!

Point being that 'phase distortion' is a reality of all music generated
from more than a single point. And, it would, of course, depend on how
one defined 'distortion'.

At the risk of being a wee bit pedantic, just consider: That
interaction as caused by instruments during the performance, it is as
you say quite rightly, 'part of the sound'. Now, if your latter-day
equipment adds (or subtracts) artifacts (additional interaction(s)) as
a result of phase distortion, that is _not_ part of the sound. Good
design minimizes the addition (or deletion) of said artifacts.

Sure, only a few commercial makers are making 'single-driver, full
range speakers'. However, quite a large number of makers do the
parts-and-pieces for same. Lowther amongst others. And those who chose
to do it themselves tend to realize full-well the limitations of the
species, hence the quite-elaborate horn configurations often proposed
by this crowd.

Getting straight to your point of 'washed out highs', what is the price
paid for good treble? No bass? Keep in mind that the basic limitations
of physics mitigate strongly against the provebial 'free lunch'. There
is no reason that any given single driver cannot have excellent treble.
But the quality of that treble will be in direct and inverse proportion
to the quality of the bass. Again, that is dictated by physics, not
opinion. Most such systems tend to tread the middle ground... hence the
statement of 'washed out highs' and 'limited bass'.

Full Pedantic Mode:

You need to catch up on an individual, William of Occam, and his
principle of the "excluded middle", AKA Occam's Razor. What he does is
state that the concept of 'polar opposites' is a fallacy. Most of us
muddle along believing that the opposite of 'Black' is *necessarily*
white. Nope. No such thing. The opposite of 'black' is quite simply,
anything that is *NOT* black. So, unless a given driver is fully
capable of reproducing the entire audio spectrum on a flat curve from
the commonly used 30Hz to 20kHz, and the equally commonly assumed
+/-3dB, it ain't nohow 'full range'.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA



--

wrote:
Phase Distortion: OK.

Using the most common analogy, consider pebbles dropped in still water.
Two pebbles dropped at different points and at different times will
propagate different ripples. When these ripples cross, they _may_ cause
interference with each other. That interference may add, cancel or
simply cross over one ripple to another. To the end that they add or
cancel, that is a source of distortion. So, multiple-driver speakers
that are not very carefully designed and whose crossovers are not
equally carefully considered *will* cause phase distortion.

Example A: A pair of speakers sounds *just great* in the audition room.
One brings them home and puts them in service. All of a sudden, one
finds oneself restless. Wanting to get up and 'run an errand', unable
to concentrate on the music for unknown reasons... Like-as-not, this is
due to the subtle phase distortion of the speakers causing a
near-subliminal discomfort. An extreme may be experienced by connecting
speakers out-of-phase and note the wretched results, even though each
speaker may sound fine alone.


Like as not, it's due to the acoustics of the two rooms, and the
speaker/listener position, being very different.



--

wrote:
Phase Distortion: OK.

Define "phase distortion,", please.

Using the most common analogy, consider pebbles dropped in still water.
Two pebbles dropped at different points and at different times will
propagate different ripples. When these ripples cross, they _may_ cause
interference with each other. That interference may add, cancel or
simply cross over one ripple to another.

Wrong, they will ALWAYS interfere. However, I suspect you
view interference as "phase distortion" or some other non-
linear process when, in fact, it is a direct consequence of the
principle of liner superposition.. That two waves interfere
AT A POINT is not distorion at all: their intereference at that
point does not distort the waveform at all/

To the end that they add or
cancel, that is a source of distortion.

False on several fronts. First, two incident waves ALWAYS
interfere, and the degree of interference can go from fully
destructive to fully additive, again according to the well-
established prinsiples of liner superposition. Your these
makes the prediction that only if the wave somehow emerges
intact from the interation is there no distortion. Well, in fact,
that is true regardless of the degree of interference.

Take your pond analogy. You will find that two waves traveling
past each other indeed interfere destructively at some points,
constructively at other points, yet your these ignores the fact
that AFTER all the intereference happens, the two original wave
emerge from the interations completely intact. Interference is
NOT something that happens to waves, it happens AT points.,
and when it happens, it only determines the energy at that
immediate point, and has not effect whatsoever on the total wave.

So, multiple-driver speakers
that are not very carefully designed and whose crossovers are not
equally carefully considered *will* cause phase distortion.

Possibly, but not for the reaons you describe above.

Electronic crossover-notch distortion is largely the same thing and may
cause exactly the same effects again if not carefully addressed in the
design.

False. Crossover distortion is NOT "phase distortion" in any way,
shape or form. Crossover distortion is a simple non-linear distortion
in the amplitude domain and there is no way that such distortion
can result in the same signal to the ears as ANY formof phase
distortion to ANY degree. "Phase distortion," absent your definition,
is a non-linear function of delay vs frequency. Crossover
distortion as you describe it is a non-linear function of amplitude.
There is no function of delay vs frequency that is in any way remotely
similar to non-linear amplitude.

Now, this argument is also the single greatest point made by the
full-range, single driver crowd. They will state (with some accuracy)
that multiple-driver systems inevitably make a certain amount of this
distortion,

Maybe with some ferver and conviction, but most arguments made by
this crowd are essentially devoid of technical accuracy. There may
be valid technical reasons, but these people seldom if ever state
them.

as they are the functional equivalent of multiple stones
dropped in still water.

As does EVERY multiple source of sound, including two full range
single-driver speakers in a stereo system, as does even a single
point source in a room with even a single reflective boundary.

The best answer to that point is that even though a microphone records
at a single point, the sound recorded is from multiple points.

As is exactly the case for a single eardrum in a room, yes?

There are VERY fundamental differences, to be sure, but
they do not negate the fundamental flaw in the statement.


--

wrote:

snip controvorsial but largely correct analysis

So, now that I am on the outside of the limb and sawing briskly, what
do you think?

Agree mostly. A few minor quibbles:

If you're installing cables inside the walls of your house, spend the
extra $$$ or rated cables. This is a fire safety issue, not a sound
quality issue. Use at least CL2 rated cable. This will set you back
about twenty cents a foot vs. plain zip cord. A reasonable discussion
at http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/inwallrating.htm NOTE: not an
endorsement of their product, never bought anything from them myself.

Speaker stands: the job of a speaker stand is to position the speaker
in the right place without otherwise changing the sound in any way.
Cheap stands may vibrate, resonate, etc which is a bad thing. Once the
manufacturer has solved this problem (and any competent woodworker can -
just make it solid) they're all the same.

As for the full range speakers, I'm intrigued by the idea, but can't
find a way to demo them, so I can't agree or disagree with you there. I
suspect you're probably right, but need more data to form an opinion.

Hospital grade recepticals are probably overkill for the basic home
stereo installation. They certainly won't hurt, but depending on the
situation may be just an unnucessary expense. Granted, whenever I spec
power for an installation I start with a separate transformer for audio
(and insist that *nothing* else get plugged into that tap) and orange
(hospital) recepticals throughout, but this is expensive. For a home
system, unless there's some identifiable power problem I'd say just
spend the bucks on better speakers.

Otherwise, you're spot on. It's unfortunate that many people trying to
assemble a high end system are confounded into wasting most of their
budget on irrelevant or barely audible accessories.

//Walt








--

wrote:
wrote:

Phase Distortion: OK.

Now, this argument is also the single greatest point made by the
full-range, single driver crowd. They will state (with some accuracy)
that multiple-driver systems inevitably make a certain amount of this
distortion, as they are the functional equivalent of multiple stones
dropped in still water. And to the goal of all-from-one, quite
elaborate, usually fairly massive boxes need be designed to get to even
a semblance of bass... and quite often the top end of the treble is
also washed out. Then one sees demonstrations with solo voices, or
voices with very small instrumental accompanyment... source well-suited
to single-driver systems.

You have been going on about these alleged single driver speakers. I
only know of two companies that are actually making single driver
speakers, Sound Lab and Quad. None of those speakers have massive boxes
nor do they have washed out treble. What speakers are you refering to?

I'm not sure what Peter is referring to, but perhaps this outfit?
http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/

They use "full range" drivers from Fostex, Lowther, et. al. and place
them in cabinets of varying sizes. The seem to be hobbyists or
enthusiasts in it for the love of the product, not for the money. I'm
intrigued by the idea of a crossoverless speaker, but unfortunately
there's no opportunity to audition them before buying.


//Walt


--

wrote:
Scott:

With all due respect, analyze the statement you just made:


Why?




With live music the interatcion
of musical instruments is part of the sound not a distortion artifact.
It is a big mistake to start comparing the nature of live performance
and playback on technical points. What is good for one is often quite
bad for the other.

Ya think??!!


Yes, that is why I said it.



Point being that 'phase distortion' is a reality of all music generated
from more than a single point. And, it would, of course, depend on how
one defined 'distortion'.


Distortion is an element of reproduction not production. That is the
point.




At the risk of being a wee bit pedantic, just consider: That
interaction as caused by instruments during the performance, it is as
you say quite rightly, 'part of the sound'. Now, if your latter-day
equipment adds (or subtracts) artifacts (additional interaction(s)) as
a result of phase distortion, that is _not_ part of the sound.


Not part of the original sound.


Good
design minimizes the addition (or deletion) of said artifacts.


Agreed.




Sure, only a few commercial makers are making 'single-driver, full
range speakers'. However, quite a large number of makers do the
parts-and-pieces for same. Lowther amongst others. And those who chose
to do it themselves tend to realize full-well the limitations of the
species, hence the quite-elaborate horn configurations often proposed
by this crowd.


I guess this is a breed of speaker i am not very familiar with.




Getting straight to your point of 'washed out highs', what is the price
paid for good treble? No bass?


Not from Quad and certainly not from Sound Lab.



Keep in mind that the basic limitations
of physics mitigate strongly against the provebial 'free lunch'. There
is no reason that any given single driver cannot have excellent treble.
But the quality of that treble will be in direct and inverse proportion
to the quality of the bass. Again, that is dictated by physics, not
opinion. Most such systems tend to tread the middle ground... hence the
statement of 'washed out highs' and 'limited bass'.


Well the Quads I have heard may not be the last word in bass but they
do have it and it sounds quite nice even if it isn't the deepest and
loudest bass you can find. OTOH the bass from the biggest Sound Labs is
pretty outstanding. I would say that both speakers are near SOTA in
treble performance. I would also point out that these speakers are SOTA
in the all important midrange. I'm not sure how these speakers are
breaking any of the laws of physics but they are full range speakers
and they do very well at both ends of the spectrum. Especially the
Sound Labs.




Full Pedantic Mode:

You need to catch up on an individual, William of Occam, and his
principle of the "excluded middle", AKA Occam's Razor. What he does is
state that the concept of 'polar opposites' is a fallacy. Most of us
muddle along believing that the opposite of 'Black' is *necessarily*
white. Nope. No such thing. The opposite of 'black' is quite simply,
anything that is *NOT* black. So, unless a given driver is fully
capable of reproducing the entire audio spectrum on a flat curve from
the commonly used 30Hz to 20kHz, and the equally commonly assumed
+/-3dB, it ain't nohow 'full range'.

Then you are wrong about full range single driver speakers. Several of
the Sound Labs do just that and not just their flagship speakers. By
the way flat meaning flat in the world of speakers. no speaker is truly
flat.

Scott


--

Wrong, they will ALWAYS interfere. However, I suspect you
view interference as "phase distortion" or some other non-
linear process when, in fact, it is a direct consequence of the
principle of liner superposition.. That two waves interfere
AT A POINT is not distorion at all: their intereference at that
point does not distort the waveform at all/

To the end that they add or
cancel, that is a source of distortion.

False on several fronts. First, two incident waves ALWAYS
interfere, and the degree of interference can go from fully
destructive to fully additive, again according to the well-
established prinsiples of liner superposition. Your these
makes the prediction that only if the wave somehow emerges
intact from the interation is there no distortion. Well, in fact,
that is true regardless of the degree of interference.

Take your pond analogy. You will find that two waves traveling
past each other indeed interfere destructively at some points,
constructively at other points, yet your these ignores the fact
that AFTER all the intereference happens, the two original wave
emerge from the interations completely intact. Interference is
NOT something that happens to waves, it happens AT points.,
and when it happens, it only determines the energy at that
immediate point, and has not effect whatsoever on the total wave.

Excepting the fact that water in a pond is (more-or-less) one
dimensional, and we are accepting no other objects within the system.
Sound from a speaker is in three dimensions and nearly-instantly
interacts with objects that will reflect different frequencies in
different ways. And precisely why I suggested connecting speakers
out-of-phase to show the extreme conditions. Your statement may be true
with a speaker in free air and with a highly damped face, with the
listening point easily chosen. That rarely obtains in the real world.
Speaker design can contribute to these interference waves. And
cross-overs can shift the phase of the various drivers (for good or
ill). The effects are subtle but very real.

So, multiple-driver speakers
that are not very carefully designed and whose crossovers are not
equally carefully considered *will* cause phase distortion.

Possibly, but not for the reaons you describe above.

Actually. And for the reasons described. Listening rooms are not
free-air. And objects within the room do affect the waves, and
crossovers do affect phase directly.

Electronic crossover-notch distortion is largely the same thing and may
cause exactly the same effects again if not carefully addressed in the
design.

False. Crossover distortion is NOT "phase distortion" in any way,
shape or form. Crossover distortion is a simple non-linear distortion
in the amplitude domain and there is no way that such distortion
can result in the same signal to the ears as ANY formof phase
distortion to ANY degree. "Phase distortion," absent your definition,
is a non-linear function of delay vs frequency. Crossover
distortion as you describe it is a non-linear function of amplitude.
There is no function of delay vs frequency that is in any way remotely
similar to non-linear amplitude.

I beg to differ. Look at notch distortion on a scope. At that point,
not only does amplitude shift, but some frequencies are suppressed or
exaggerated about that point. Again the effects are subtle, but can
make the difference between sweet and 'glass in a blender'.

Now, this argument is also the single greatest point made by the
full-range, single driver crowd. They will state (with some accuracy)
that multiple-driver systems inevitably make a certain amount of this
distortion,

Maybe with some ferver and conviction, but most arguments made by
this crowd are essentially devoid of technical accuracy. There may
be valid technical reasons, but these people seldom if ever state
them.

as they are the functional equivalent of multiple stones
dropped in still water.

As does EVERY multiple source of sound, including two full range
single-driver speakers in a stereo system, as does even a single
point source in a room with even a single reflective boundary.

Yep. Inherent false premises. We absolutely agree on this... BTW, have
you seen the lastest "single-point stereo" stuff out there? Based on
exactly the premise that two speakers interfere with each other.

The best answer to that point is that even though a microphone records
at a single point, the sound recorded is from multiple points.

As is exactly the case for a single eardrum in a room, yes?

Yeah, but we have two of them, as well as our 'guts' for the really low
notes. When we listen, information comes from our entire body, the ears
being most of it. Just like we think we taste with our tongues...
actually that is about 20%, the other 80% being smell (Some would
further divide the 80% to include sight at a significant number).

There are VERY fundamental differences, to be sure, but
they do not negate the fundamental flaw in the statement.

If you say so.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

Walt:

Rated cables when buried is a common sense. Even when not buried is
good sense. Speaker stands: Sure. They have a basic function, and
should meet that function. But it is not rocket science, nor should it
be expensive (other than the expense required of any decent furniture).


Hospital-grade receptacles cost about $5 each at a supply-house in
quantities of 10. My initial reason for installing them around the
house was that I got 20 (Pass & Seymour) of them once at a surplus
auction for $10. With the coming of our first grandchild and her
present toddlerhood, I then realized that plugs are very hard to pull
out of them, relative to standard grade. Another practical reason.

Physics mitigates against single drivers. For lots of reasons. But your
ears are the ultimate judge, true.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

"Walt" wrote in message
...
wrote:

snip controvorsial but largely correct analysis

So, now that I am on the outside of the limb and sawing briskly, what
do you think?

Agree mostly. A few minor quibbles:

If you're installing cables inside the walls of your house, spend the
extra $$$ or rated cables. This is a fire safety issue, not a sound
quality issue. Use at least CL2 rated cable. This will set you back
about twenty cents a foot vs. plain zip cord. A reasonable discussion at
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/inwallrating.htm NOTE: not an
endorsement of their product, never bought anything from them myself.

Speaker stands: the job of a speaker stand is to position the speaker in
the right place without otherwise changing the sound in any way. Cheap
stands may vibrate, resonate, etc which is a bad thing. Once the
manufacturer has solved this problem (and any competent woodworker can -
just make it solid) they're all the same.

It is quite easy to build your own stands that willnot vibrate, although I'm
not sure the vibration from any stand will ever be sufficient to cause any
audible problems. A very simple method is to get some black (or white) PVC
tubing as is sold at Home Depot, attach it with some form of adhesive and
hardware to a bottom base, fill it with sand, then seal it with the platform
for the speaker. Back before I became aware of how little difference stands
actually make I built the following stands with some help from a friend who
worked in place where welding equipment was available. The riser is 2x4''
3/8'' thick steel filled with sand, with a 12" square x 3/8" thick base
plate at the bottom and a similar plate at the top, which was trimmed in
size for the main speakers. The whole thing was much cheaper than any of
the 'high end' stands I've ever seen and quite a bit more massive.

As for the full range speakers, I'm intrigued by the idea, but can't find
a way to demo them, so I can't agree or disagree with you there. I
suspect you're probably right, but need more data to form an opinion.

You couold check the measured specs for any of the so called full range
drivers and see for yourself that they really aren't. I certainly do not
know of any driver that can produce bass below 30 Hz and treble up to 20
kHz, but if somebody knows of one..................

Hospital grade recepticals are probably overkill for the basic home stereo
installation. They certainly won't hurt, but depending on the situation
may be just an unnucessary expense. Granted, whenever I spec power for an
installation I start with a separate transformer for audio (and insist
that *nothing* else get plugged into that tap) and orange (hospital)
recepticals throughout, but this is expensive. For a home system, unless
there's some identifiable power problem I'd say just spend the bucks on
better speakers.

Otherwise, you're spot on. It's unfortunate that many people trying to
assemble a high end system are confounded into wasting most of their
budget on irrelevant or barely audible accessories.

//Walt


Agree completely.


There really are very few things worth sinking major dollars into for a
decent audio system, and the most important is speakers, everything else is
very far behind, with the possible exception of a Vinyl playback system for
those folks who are enamored of that sound.



--

Several of the Sound Labs do just that and not just their flagship speakers

Um.... Um.... Sound Lab speakers are electrostatics? Right?

That is a 'single driver' only by the very broadest definition of the
term. If you look at their literature, the term "stators" vs. "stator"
is used. That is your clue. It is absolutely true that a single
diaphram is used.... but multiple fixed elements.

Noted also that no curves or specifications in dB are published, but
given their size I can accept a +/-3dB spec.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

wrote:
Wrong, they will ALWAYS interfere. However, I suspect you
view interference as "phase distortion" or some other non-
linear process when, in fact, it is a direct consequence of the
principle of liner superposition.. That two waves interfere
AT A POINT is not distorion at all: their intereference at that
point does not distort the waveform at all/

To the end that they add or
cancel, that is a source of distortion.

False on several fronts. First, two incident waves ALWAYS
interfere, and the degree of interference can go from fully
destructive to fully additive, again according to the well-
established prinsiples of linaer superposition. Your thesis
makes the prediction that only if the wave somehow emerges
intact from the interation is there no distortion. Well, in fact,
that is true regardless of the degree of interference.

Take your pond analogy. You will find that two waves traveling
past each other indeed interfere destructively at some points,
constructively at other points, yet your these ignores the fact
that AFTER all the intereference happens, the two original wave
emerge from the interations completely intact. Interference is
NOT something that happens to waves, it happens AT points.,
and when it happens, it only determines the energy at that
immediate point, and has not effect whatsoever on the total wave.

Excepting the fact that water in a pond is (more-or-less) one
dimensional,

Sorry, it's only 1 dimension shy of the acoustical case,

and we are accepting no other objects within the
system.

Completely irrelevant: linear superposition holds equally
well in 1 dimension, 2 dimensions, 3 dimensions, etc.

Sound from a speaker is in three dimensions and nearly-instantly
interacts with objects that will reflect different frequencies in
different ways.

That's not what youb stated, you spoke diretly to the subject of
interference, and your desription was wrong, as were the
conclusions you drew from them.

And precisely why I suggested connecting speakers
out-of-phase to show the extreme conditions. Your statement may be true
with a speaker in free air and with a highly damped face, with the
listening point easily chosen.

False, linear superposition holds in ALL cases.

Speaker design can contribute to these interference waves.

What is an "interference wave?" A wave is a wave. Two or more
waves WILL interefere when they interact at a point in space.
ALWAYS. And at different points they interfere differently.

"Interference wave" may sound intuitively correct, but it's another
example of how intuition is wrong.

And
cross-overs can shift the phase of the various drivers (for good or
ill). The effects are subtle but very real.

So, multiple-driver speakers
that are not very carefully designed and whose crossovers are not
equally carefully considered *will* cause phase distortion.

Possibly, but not for the reaons you describe above.

Actually. And for the reasons described. Listening rooms are not
free-air. And objects within the room do affect the waves, and
crossovers do affect phase directly.

No, you don't get it. You attempted to describe a mechanism of
interference which is simply at odds with how interference actually
works, and that fact is exemplified by your invention (or use) of
the term "interference wave."

Electronic crossover-notch distortion is largely the same thing and may
cause exactly the same effects again if not carefully addressed in the
design.

False. Crossover distortion is NOT "phase distortion" in any way,
shape or form. Crossover distortion is a simple non-linear distortion
in the amplitude domain and there is no way that such distortion
can result in the same signal to the ears as ANY formof phase
distortion to ANY degree. "Phase distortion," absent your definition,
is a non-linear function of delay vs frequency. Crossover
distortion as you describe it is a non-linear function of amplitude.
There is no function of delay vs frequency that is in any way remotely
similar to non-linear amplitude.

I beg to differ. Look at notch distortion on a scope. At that point,
not only does amplitude shift, but some frequencies are suppressed or
exaggerated about that point.

No, YOU look at notch distortion on a scope. In fact, while your at it,
measure the phase response of the system while you adjust the
bias so the amplifier has differing degrees of notch distortion.
Guess what? The phase response of the system DOES NOT CHANGE.

Your assertion that notch distortion and phase distortion is
"largely the same thing" is, indeed, a rather extraordinary claim.
You are directly suggesting that there is an intrinsic connection
between non-linearity in teh amplitdue domain and the time
domain. I might suggest that such an extraordinary claim requires
rather extraordinarry proof. Certainly a number of people, going
back to the likes of Fourier, Netwon and Leibnitz might be
interested to find out that 400 years of work has just been turned
on its head

(note: not very likely)

Again the effects are subtle, but can
make the difference between sweet and 'glass in a blender'.

The sound you claim may or may not be what you claim, but
your technical explanation is simply wrong.


--

wrote:
Several of the Sound Labs do just that and not just their flagship speakers

Um.... Um.... Sound Lab speakers are electrostatics? Right?

That is a 'single driver' only by the very broadest definition of the
term.

Who was the one lecturing about Occam? It's speaker and it sure isn't
a multiple driver speaker. That makes it a single driver speaker.
Period.


If you look at their literature, the term "stators" vs. "stator"
is used.


Yeah, your point?


That is your clue.


Hmm it is my clue that perhaps you don't know how this speaker works.
It is normal for an electrstatic driver to have two stators, one behind
the diaphram and one in front of the diaphram. Did you look at the
pictures when you read the literature?


It is absolutely true that a single
diaphram is used.... but multiple fixed elements.



ok.......


So do tell me how this single driver speaker is violating the laws of
physics? The Bass is comming from the same driver as the treble. The
treble is not washed out and the bass is not missing. Perhaps this
reference to the laws of physics was eroneous?



Noted also that no curves or specifications in dB are published, but
given their size I can accept a +/-3dB spec.


Their newest flagships allegedly go down to 20 hz.



Scott


--

Hello Peter, I welcome your acquaintance.

I get the feeling that you are inviting controversy with this voicing
of personal opinion. Needless to say, it is intriguing enough to lure
my attention.

wrote:
I have seen a couple of threads lately that refer to types and sorts of
equipment that near-as-make-no-difference when it comes to the actual
sound produced. In my opinion, they include, but are not limited to:

Speaker Cables: Within the broad universe of typical home use, speaker
cables have no impact whatsoever on sound produced, roughly along these
lines:

Very important qualifier here. "Within the broad universe of typical
home use" Just what universe is this? Perhaps the majority of
population who do not listen critically or analytically? This
qualifier most certainly suggests that anything following is not
intended for, or pertaining to the pursuit of pure, transparent audio
reproduction.

6 feet (2 meters) or less per run: 16 gauge Zip is fine.
10 feet (3 meters) or less per run: 14ga
10-20 feet (3-7 meters): 12ga
And so forth.

20 feet of 12-2 stranded line-cord will run less than $0.75/foot. Add
$5 for fancy spade-lugs or banana plugs.

Two 20-foot runs: $40.

Interconnects (AKA Patch Cords): a decent set of $5/meter patch-cords
is as good as anything else available excepting _very_ specific
conditions such as may require special shielding or capacitance or
impedance matching.
Assume the worst case: Power-amp, Pre-amp, CD, Tuner, TT, Tape = five
(5) sets of cords. Assume 2 meters per cord: $50.

Nothing to contest here. The speaker wire/patchcord boutique market is
highly overrated. On the other hand, I would never use bare-minimum
quality connecting medium for my components and speakers. Some cheap
zipcord has oxidation evident on the strands when you strip it. Some
cheap patchcords do not have quality connectors and proper strain
relief. It is prudent to use some common sense in terms of durability,
serviceability, and general longevity.

Hospital-Grade Receptacle: $5

I don't know any sonic advantages to these. Perhaps it is a safety or
durability issue? I make certain that my two listening rooms have
discrete electrical feeds that are filtered and regulated to provide an
ample, and nominal electrical supply that is clean of spikes and
interference.

Line Cords: Included with equipment

Total peripherals cost (that actually carry power or signal): $95.

Speaker Stands: Furniture items. Chosen 100% for aesthetics.
Speaker Cord Towers: No value

Beg to differ. Speaker stands should only be considered as furniture
items or aesthetics in a secondary sense. Furniture is built to a
"dogs breakfast" of standards. Terrible to excellent. Speaker stands
should provide a proper foundation and specified height and geometry to
enable the speakers to perform to their best. Usually, they need to be
very rigid, stable, and as acoustically inert as possible in
construction.

CD Players: Any unit with a decent transport and up-to-date DAC Chips
will have playback capacities in excess of the quality of what is
recorded on the CD. There is no need for any signal-processing elements
beyond these very-basics. There is certainly no need for outboard DAC
units (excepting needs for additional/other purposes than CD playback),
belt-drive transports or anything along those lines.

Analog Tuners: A moderate tuner will do more with an excellent antenna
than an excellent tuner will do with a moderate antenna. Excellent
antennas cost far less than excellent tuners.

I agree that having an antenna engineered to provide excellent capture
characteristics for the sources that will be used is of prime
importance. However, an "excellent tuner" will outperform a "moderate
tuner" when both are using a good antenna. A "moderate tuner" still
performs "moderately", even when presented with an excellent signal.

Turntables:

a) first value: Protect the vinyl
b1) second value: Protect the cartridge and stylus
b2) third value: Accurate speed
c) excellent isolation
d) ease of operation
e) ease of care

I don't know how you can possibly define "protecting the vinyl, and
protecting the cartridge and stylus" in different levels. These are
interlinked and relational.

The cartridge/stylus assembly must be mounted correctly in the tonearm,
and the tonearm settings must be optimized for the particular
cartridge/stylus assembly. This is the best you can do to both protect
your investment in both the cartridge/stylus and your records.

I think it is better specified as "Optimising the geometry and tracking
characteristics for the best possible playback". If the
tonearm/cartridge/stylus is setup to deliver it's best possible
performance, it will absolutely provide the best protection for itself
and the record grooves that it is tracing.

The above can be had new for less than $400 these days. And when
coupled with a decent cartridge/stylus are as good as what they are
playing, or better.

True enough for resourceful, and mechanically apt audiophiles. There
are however some audiophiles who cannot handle a screwdriver correctly
and end up having to pay more at times.

Pre-amps: After a certain point, improvements are inaudible. That point
is pretty quickly reached. So, pick a pre-amp for features and
convenience once its basic quality is established.

Power Amps: NOW there is meat to chew on an choices to be made. But
again, after a certain point, basic quality is established. After that
point, one is buying headroom. And headroom IS critical.

Inaudible to the majority, I agree. The situation is better now (in
general) than ever, but there are occasions for differences that can be
reliably identified. Exceptions exist both in the electronics design,
and in the sensory acuity of some critical listeners.

Speakers: THIS is the critical item and that single item that will have
the most and longest lasting impact on the listening experience. If
money is to be spent, it is to be spent here.

Absolutely the most important item in any reproduction system. Close
second is the turntable/tonearm/cartridge/stylus. Reason is simple.
One system converts analogue, physical motion into a representative
analogue alternating electrical current, and the other converts an
analogue alternating electrical current into a representative analogue,
physical motion. These are the weakest links in the signal chain.

A few myths for discussion:

I will state my opinions (and they are only that):

Now here is an interesting premise. It appears that these stated
opinions of yours are myths, in your opinion only.

Single-driver, full range speakers aren't. That is unless one
re-defines "full range" and/or allows as much as a 10dB drop at the
limits of that range.

There are a couple that have been mentioned by Scott, I believe. The
Quad ESL and the Sound Lab electrostatics. The Sound Lab "Ultimate"
and the "Audiophile" series have response down to 24 - 28Hz, and high
frequency response to beyond 20KHz.

Don't forget the much maligned Bose 901 series. This is a one way
speaker system that has been successfully marketed since 1968 (I
think). Nine identical 4 inch, full range speakers. Equalized to
depress the midrange to the levels of the bass and treble response.
Not at all accurate in imaging or positioning of the sonic events being
reproduced. But very much a full range, one way (no crossover) speaker
system.

Good Bass is a function of moving air, as is good Treble. Moving enough
air to make a 30Hz organ note is on a different order of magnitude than
moving enough air to make a 4200Hz piccolo note (and all their
respective overtones). Asking a single driver to do both,
simultaneously, is simply silly. However, it does take a certain amount
of power to do either competently. And to make near-live
classical-music concert volume levels takes a good deal of power...
just to move the air.

"Simply silly" is your personal perpective of dismissal to any
possibilities. Of course it is possible. It is more difficult, and
likely will cost much more to manufacture (look at the prices of Sound
Labs gear), but I feel secure in saying it can be done.

Getting to: Small Drivers, however long the voice-coil excursion are
inherently limited at bass frequencies. "Large" drivers are similarly
limited at treble frequencies due to their mass. In part the physics of
all this explain the wretched (and very seldom published) response
curves of most so-called 'full range' single drivers.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to assert here. Perhaps that
the less accurate, lower cost full range driver attempts may be
inadequate in frequency response possibilities. I am not much of a
Bose 901 fan either. But I do not rule out the possibility that this
cannot be done adequately. When imagination and creativity combine
with money and manufacturing... strange, wonderful, and unlikely things
can happen.

Even the best quality, state of the art speaker systems will exhibit
very notable frequency response variations when set in different rooms,
environments, etc... This is why it is of utmost importance to first
find the optimum positioning (room loading) of the speakers to best
deliver an even response. Next is optimising the furniture layout and
room treatment items like curtains, rugs, etc... The combination of
these procedures can minimise standing waves, resonances, and obtain
the best imaging and frequency response that is possible within the
context of a given room.

So: If I were to be forced (with a gun to my head) to purchase a 'new'
audio system today, I would start with the speakers, next to
amplification, and with what's left move on from there. The choice of
speakers would dictate the minimum power-output from the amp, NOT the
other way around. However, an infinitely powerful amplifier will drive
-any- speaker. I would purchase standard cables & interconnects. I
would change my receptacle to a hospital-grade unit (well, I do that
for most things in the house anyway, it is simply common-sense). I
would not mess around with the line cords.

I believe you are right to start with the speakers. Next to that, I
would consider my turntable/tonearm/cartridge/stylus and preamp
combination. You see, I still listen to my records quite frequently,
and I have a massive collection.

I would be a careful in stating that an "infinitely powerful amplifier"
may be great for powering a very small load. I agree that this is true
in theory and the great majority of the time in practice as well.
However, some very powerful amplifiers are designed to deliver their
best possible audio performance while being driven moderately to fairly
hard. There are exceptions that do not deliver excellent audio while
"idling" at fractions of a watt average.

Sadly, it is also my opinion that today 'audio' is dictated by what is
heard on computer speakers. Anything that sounds even moderately better
than the computer is instantly "good". I find this passing strange, as
the improvements in speaker materials, magnets, design and
manufacturing processes and even cross-over design should have led to
very, very, very good speakers at relatively moderate costs as compared
to 20-or-more years ago. But, at least from what I have seen, the trend
is towards speakers designed seemingly just for aesthetics, flea-power
amps and inaccessible ergonomics. More so, elsctronics have leaped
ahead in many subtle ways, such that substantial clean, quiet power
should also be readily available at very moderate costs. In some cases
it is. In many cases, it is not.

THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, of course. But there is also a disproportionate
amount of expensive ***** out there.

Mostly true in my opinion as well. Unfortunately we live in a society
that is market driven and mindless of considering function before form,
style, or trend. Look at all the SUV's and Hummers out on the road.
Why?? It's a market driven image manifestation that is "drilled" into
people's brains from every media source.

I also respectfully submit that audio and video are in many significant
ways mutually exclusive excepting the concert hall.

I am sorry, but I am missing your point about audio and video here. I
find that in most live music situations that the audio and video are
very much together in the experience.

Conversely, when I am listening to a recording, I find myself striving
to imagine the various sources of the sounds. When I can close my
eyes, clear my mind, and listen to an excellent audio reproduction,
there are times when I can clearly relive the live experience to
varying degrees.

Cheers,
Skeeter.


--

wrote:

Hospital grade recepticals are probably overkill for the basic home
stereo installation. They certainly won't hurt, but depending on the
situation may be just an unnucessary expense.

Hospital-grade receptacles cost about $5 each at a supply-house in
quantities of 10. My initial reason for installing them around the
house was that I got 20 (Pass & Seymour) of them once at a surplus
auction for $10. With the coming of our first grandchild and her
present toddlerhood, I then realized that plugs are very hard to pull
out of them, relative to standard grade. Another practical reason.

When I think of "hospital grade" AC, I'm thinking of the orange
receptacal with an isolated ground carried directly back to the panel.
If the present AC receptacle doesn't already have an isolated ground,
you'd need to re run the wiring to have a "proper" hospital grade AC
outlet. This is much more expensive than simply replacing the connector
at the box.

Simply replacing the connector is cheap, and if the wiring is already up
to the standard (i.e. isolated ground) only takes a few minutes. If
not, installing an orange receptical without isolating the ground
violates NEC - the orange is supposed to mean something. Which isn't to
say that it's unsafe, just don't try to use hospital equipment in your
house that may depend on an isolated ground.

Appologies for the US-centric tone of this post - NEC (US National
Electric Code ) is what I know.

//Walt


--

Skeeter wrote:
Hello Peter, I welcome your acquaintance.

I get the feeling that you are inviting controversy with this voicing
of personal opinion. Needless to say, it is intriguing enough to lure
my attention.

wrote:
I have seen a couple of threads lately that refer to types and sorts of
equipment that near-as-make-no-difference when it comes to the actual
sound produced. In my opinion, they include, but are not limited to:

Speaker Cables: Within the broad universe of typical home use, speaker
cables have no impact whatsoever on sound produced, roughly along these
lines:

Very important qualifier here. "Within the broad universe of typical
home use" Just what universe is this?

I suspect he meant this to exclude such exotica as tube amps with
abnormal output impedances and the occasional speaker whose impedance
drops to a single ohm. If you have gear like that, you do need to pay
attention to factors beyond resistance losses.

Perhaps the majority of
population who do not listen critically or analytically? This
qualifier most certainly suggests that anything following is not
intended for, or pertaining to the pursuit of pure, transparent audio
reproduction.

In general (meaning: absent exotica mentioned above), there are two
kinds of listeners: People who do not hear differences between cables,
and people who only think they hear differences between cables. We are
still waiting for confirmation of any third category. Until such
confirmation comes, we can confidently rely on properly sized zipcord
to provide us with "pure, transparent audio reproduction."

bob


--

The isolated ground goes without saying... as you stated, NEC and all
that. Home-run directly to the panel with no stops or splices in
between. So, HG receptacles for only certain applications and certain
locations where they are not part of a string.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

Skeeter & Scott:

First, let's establish one thing: Electrostatic speakers are _not_ what
is typically taken as single-driver, full range speakers. First, by
their nature, they distribute the reproduction via the interaction
between the fixed charge on the diaphram and the variable charges on
the stators (plural). By that possibility, they need no additional
baffles in order to function, and they have the capacity to have local
and general effects on the diaphram... as Sound Lab carefully explains
in their literature. So, Lowthers they ain't (as a typical 'full-range
single driver'). I guess I should have qualified to state typical
voice-coil & magnet drivers.

The Bose 901.... YIKES.... that old phrase "no highs, no lows, must be
Bose" is well-stated. One can equalize the hell out of them and get
them to produce something akin to a full-range response if you like it
so muddy as to be at best the third-cousin, twice-removed of the
incoming signal. Just like one can force a grape through a sieve...
only it ain't much of a grape on the other side. But the 901 is a
multiple-driver system for all that as well. That it sells in
quantity... well, so does Night Train Express, or Mad Dog 20/20.

By "audio & video", I am taking a not-so-subtle dig at the
surround-sound about a massive television crowd. You will note the very
clear statement "excepting the concert hall". But when I am listening
to music at home, unless it is background-for-reading (or otherwise)
activities, I find myself closing my eyes and imagining the venue and
where the musicians might be placed. A massive screen, even if blank,
would be distracting from that.

As to vinyl systems, sure the cartridge & arm assembly is all part of
the protection-of-the vinyl part, but it is certainly possible to put a
crappy cartridge on an excellent TT, and a very-high-end cartridge on a
crappy TT. Point being that both should be attended-to with the same
care and value. I won't get too far into your statement on mechanically
apt audiophiles... I agree that the proper set-up of a TT is not for
the inept, but beyond that, any well-designed equipment should be
pretty intuitive in its operation, certainly far less complicated than
the 'program the VCR' skill-level. Not for a Martian perhaps, but
certainly for any normally skilled individual raised in a 'machine'
culture.

Not so sure on the speaker cable piece. Sure, oxidation does happen.
Hence the proper connectors to eliminate that specific issue. I could
tell you several war-stories about salts on cheap patch-cords
rectifying in the CB-frequency range (amongst others)... and at
considerable volume. So, junk cords are not what is under discussion.
But keep in mind that at room temperature, copper is a better conductor
than gold, and silver is best of all. Aluminum would be between copper
and gold, but for the troublesome oxides that form on its surface.

Point of all this, I guess, is that if our collective goals is to
design a concatenation of equipment that meet our personal (and
*possibly* unique) desires from an audio system, we should concentrate
on those things that actually make real differences... and only to the
extent that they actually do make a difference. Only after all that
sweat the small stuff.

Lastly, speaker stands: If one buys cheap or expedient furniture, one
is also likely to buy cheap or expedient audio equipment. One assumes a
very basic mimimal quality... after which the rest is either aesthetics
on the one hand or smoke-and-mirrors on the other. But to endow a bit
of furniture with mystical powers beyond its simple function is....
again.... simply silly.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

wrote:
Skeeter & Scott:

First, let's establish one thing: Electrostatic speakers are _not_ what
is typically taken as single-driver, full range speakers.


OK but i did ask what speakers you were refering to when I mentioned
the electrostatic single driver speakers that I know of. I don't recall
any kind of answer. But no problem. Must be something i don't know
about.

First, by
their nature, they distribute the reproduction via the interaction
between the fixed charge on the diaphram and the variable charges on
the stators (plural).


Not sure why you think two stators makes more than one driver. It
doesn't.


By that possibility, they need no additional
baffles in order to function, and they have the capacity to have local
and general effects on the diaphram...


All fo which is true of a cone driver. you won't get good sound but
they do work without baffles. i'm pretty sure that every electrostatic
speaker has some sort of baffle.


as Sound Lab carefully explains
in their literature. So, Lowthers they ain't (as a typical 'full-range
single driver').


Ah, Lowthers would be a speaker you are refering to.?.? never heard of
it.


I guess I should have qualified to state typical
voice-coil & magnet drivers.


Yeah. But what's up? i never heard about this movement in audio? Is it
a movement?



The Bose 901.... YIKES....


Agreed.




As to vinyl systems, sure the cartridge & arm assembly is all part of
the protection-of-the vinyl part, but it is certainly possible to put a
crappy cartridge on an excellent TT, and a very-high-end cartridge on a
crappy TT. Point being that both should be attended-to with the same
care and value. I won't get too far into your statement on mechanically
apt audiophiles... I agree that the proper set-up of a TT is not for
the inept, but beyond that, any well-designed equipment should be
pretty intuitive in its operation, certainly far less complicated than
the 'program the VCR' skill-level. Not for a Martian perhaps, but
certainly for any normally skilled individual raised in a 'machine'
culture.


Gotta disagree with this one. There's a lot involved in propperly
setting up a cartridge. The ease is very dependant on the arm. My old
SME V was actually pretty easy if you took the time to learn all you
need to know about cartridge set up. OTOH my Forsell arm requires
tremendous hand eye coordination. Set this arm up and you understand
that it was designed by a surgeon.



Scott


--

wrote:
"Walt" wrote
wrote:

snip controvorsial but largely correct analysis

Speaker stands: the job of a speaker stand is to position the speaker in
the right place without otherwise changing the sound in any way. Cheap
stands may vibrate, resonate, etc which is a bad thing. Once the
manufacturer has solved this problem (and any competent woodworker can -
just make it solid) they're all the same.

It is quite easy to build your own stands that willnot vibrate, although I'm
not sure the vibration from any stand will ever be sufficient to cause any
audible problems.

Imagine going to the local hardware store, buying a pair of aluminum
trash cans, bringing them home, turning them upside down, and placing
your speakers on them. They might get them at the right height, but...

Ok, this is an extreme example, but stands can vibrate and add an
annoying distorted artifact to the sound. Cheaply constructed stands
*will* have sympathetic vibrations and that's why you don't just buy any
old plant stand from Target or the garden store for your speakers. As
you say, a solid stand that doesn't vibrate isn't that difficult to
build, but it does take some care on the part of the builder. Agree
that there's nothing magical about a speaker stand - it shouldn't add
anything to the sound.


As for the full range speakers, I'm intrigued by the idea, but can't find
a way to demo them, so I can't agree or disagree with you there. I
suspect you're probably right, but need more data to form an opinion.

You couold check the measured specs for any of the so called full range
drivers and see for yourself that they really aren't. I certainly do not
know of any driver that can produce bass below 30 Hz and treble up to 20
kHz, but if somebody knows of one..................

Lowther claims 30Hz to 22kHz for their drivers, although they don't
quote tolerances so they may be 30 db down at the extremes. Of course,
the enclosure will make a huge difference in the low end response and
these specs are for the driver only. See:
http://www.lowtherspeakers.com/dx.jpg

As I said, intriguing idea at least on paper. But I haven't heard them,
so I'll have to reserve judgment. BTW, I did write the US vendor and
ask about a demo, and I got back a sales pitch saying that they don't do
demos, but I can buy them blind with a money back guarantee. They claim
that no one has ever returned a pair of their speakers and that no one
has ever come for an audition without buying.

Sounded too good to be true. I passed.

//Walt


--

Ah, Lowthers would be a speaker you are refering to.?.? never heard of it.

I guess I should have qualified to state typical
voice-coil & magnet drivers.

Yeah. But what's up? i never heard about this movement in audio? Is it a movement?

More like a revealed religion.

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/olde...hornspkrs.html

http://melhuish.org/audio/DIYRH9.html

And much, much, much more.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


--

wrote:
Skeeter & Scott:

First, let's establish one thing: Electrostatic speakers are _not_ what
is typically taken as single-driver, full range speakers.

If not then what is??

First, by
their nature, they distribute the reproduction via the interaction
between the fixed charge on the diaphram and the variable charges on
the stators (plural).

Which has no significance other than that they are driven more or less
uniformly over their entire surface - of course they do have less
excursion and more effective stiffness at the edges where they are
suspended.


By that possibility, they need no additional
baffles in order to function,

Actually, no. They are no different in this respect than any other
diaphragm. They can function as such mostly because of the larger
surface area than an equivalent 'dynamic driver' and sometimes down to
bass frequencies because of the Q of the system. No different in this
regard than something like the dipole Carver speakers that used dynamic
drivers for bass without a baffle.

All speakers have a relationship with baffles or lack thereof. ESLs are
no different in this regard.

There are commercially made ESLs with sealed box baffles, fwiw.

and they have the capacity to have local
and general effects on the diaphram... as Sound Lab carefully explains
in their literature.

Local and general effects? Standing waves? All speakers have standing
waves and breakup modes on their surface (so far).

Sound Labs ESL speakers are made with full range drivers, just multiples
of them.

So, Lowthers they ain't (as a typical 'full-range
single driver'). I guess I should have qualified to state typical
voice-coil & magnet drivers.

Lowthers are actually NOT *full range* single drivers.
They are two way speakers with a mechanical xover to a whizzer cone.
If supplied without a whizzer cone, then they are wide range drivers -
certainly not full range - and they suffer from many if not all of the
issues found when drivers are used at frequencies whose wavelengths are
small compared to the diaphragm size...as well as many others.

snip


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


_-_-bear


--