"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).

If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per
channel amps, wall-to-wall. So, do you?

Archive-name: AudioFAQ/part4

11.6 Is this amplifier too big for that set of speakers?
There is no such thing as an amplifier that is too big.
Small amplifiers are more likely to damage speakers
than large ones, because small amplifiers are more
likely to clip than larger ones, at the same listening
level. I have never heard of speakers being damaged
by an overly large amplifier.

Drivers are damaged by having to dissipate more power than they are
capable of on a sustained basis. The driver most apt to fail is the
tweeter, because it is physically small and thus unable to dissipate
much power. Thankfully, the high frequencies that are sent to the
tweeter are usually fairly low in power. That's how inexpensive
speakers manage to survive 100W amplifiers; very little of that 100W
is normally in the high frequency range handled by the tweeter.
However, if the amplifier is driven into clipping, a lot of extra
power is generated at frequencies 3, 5, 7, etc. times the fundamental,
and this additional power will go straight to the tweeter and burn it
out.

That's the origin of the belief that it's dangerous to underpower a
set of speakers. When an amp is driven to clipping on a regular
basis, it sends excess power to the tweeters, which in no way can
handle it. You can get the same results by sending a continuous
20kHz to a speaker. Even a signal well within the capability of the
amplifier will quickly burn out a tweeter. I know; I've done it.
:-(

Norm Strong

Arny Krueger wrote:

My last shot at it on another forum pointed out that subwoofer crossovers
are low pass filters in the 50 to 150 Hz range. 12 to 24 dB roll-offs are
common. Even an 18 inch subwoofer has a natural rolloff that is someplace
above 500 Hz, normally 12 dB/ocatve. If you cascade any kind of serious 150
Hz low pass filter with a 500 Hz low pass filter, the 150 Hz is tremendously
dominant. At 500 Hz, a 125 Hz 12 dB filter is something like 20 dB or more
down. So, the effects of relative difference in the *speed* of the subwoofer
driver are completely blown away by the crossover that is always there.

I always ran a normal non-filtered signal through mine, when I had
one(died in the Northridge earthquake) so it wasn't such a big deal.
I can see how an A/V receiver and the speaker could fight each other.

That's one advantage of (nearly)full-range speakers like his 20s or
my JBLs.

Now for a discussion of the *real* issue. Every room has a frequency,
inversely dependent on its size, where the room starts producing a
sifnificant bass boost. This boost may or may not be mixed in with otehr
audible effects due to standing waves. Its always there if the room has any
integrity as a closed volume.

Yep. 45hz give or take in my old house with its wood floors. The new
place I'm moving into this weekend we'll have to see - I suspect it's
a bit tighter built.

On a good day, the subwoofer comes with a specialized parametric equalizer
that allows you to tune it to any reasonable room.

They don't?

On a slightly worse day,
the user provides his own equalizer, hopefully a parametric.

(digs around in his garage - yep - I have one of those too)

(Wonders why subs are a big deal for HT - when you can just get
a bunch of 8-12 inchers in your towers and ignore most of this
nonsense)

On most days, miseducated to
pathologically fear equalizers by the high end establishment and its dupes,
the hapless audiophile has no control over the situation other than buying
and selling subwoofers until he blunders into the right one.

Bingo Subs are a specialty product that reinforces and
extends bass. The fact is that placement and integration
with a $100 DIY sub done properly can work just as well - it's
not like you need crystal clean accuracy in the 20-50hz range
due to how deficient our hearing is by design.

That said, a good servo sub is recommended, IMO, because you
get rid of a significant amount of distortion that plagues
speakers in general, and subs in particular.

I recommended ML because their servo sub is small, attractive,
and isn't as expensive as the Velodyne models.

Powell wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote


The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...


What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel). If the
poster says that biamping works for him, what leads you
to believe that he is mistaken about his empirical
experience?

The 20s aren't difficult to drive. If he wants to do a
5/6 channel setup, he can use his two amps to drive 4 channels
with no change in the quality of his sound.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote


The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...


What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel). If the
poster says that biamping works for him, what leads you
to believe that he is mistaken about his empirical
experience?

The 20s aren't difficult to drive. If he wants to do a
5/6 channel setup, he can use his two amps to drive
4 channels with no change in the quality of his sound.

How would you know?

Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s
Power Handling 150 RMS/350 peak
Recommended Amplifier 100 watts - 300 watts

2 - Arcam Alpha 8/8P power amps, 50 watts @ 8 ohms.

Joseph wrote "The two amplifiers you have are
overkill"...you are sadly mistaken.

S888Wheel a écrit :

Nope, I chose not to fix the problem the court had with the proof of service
and let the case go.

[snip]

You got lucky that I got busy. Nothing more.

LOL, the guy who has spent 100s hours on RAO to comment, explain and
justify his lawsuit (in more than 1000 messages), says now that he his
too busy to go on... ;-)
This idiot is so full of hatred and rage that he cannot find a better
explanation to his failure.

Mr. Wheeler,

On July 17 2004 at 22:13:11 PST in the following post :
----------------------------------------------------------
De :S888Wheel )
Objet : S888Wheel (Squat Wheeler)- stupidity incarnate

Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2004-07-15 20:38:21 PST

OK so you are a ****wad who can't take responsibility for his own
****tiness.
-----------------------------------------------------------

You falsely accused me of being a ****wad. your accusation was a
willful lie intended to damage my reputation. By law this makes your
post libelous. I am demanding that you post a response to this libelous
post to retract it, admit that the post was libelous and apologize for
it. I also demand that you do the same for every libelous and
contentious post you have made regarding me since the post in question
was made. If in thirty days from today, 7/18/04 you have failed to
comply with these demands I will file a lawsuit for libel against you in
the Saint-Etienne court of justice. a copy of the complaint is enclosed
in this letter. Should you comply with these demands no lawsuit will be
filed on this matter. Should you comply with these demands and then
libel me again in the future, a new lawsuit will be filed for all
incidents of libel by you against me.


Lionel Chapuis.

LOL !

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Go ahead, elaborate on that...

Nahh Dormer, you aren't worth the trouble to try to educate.

You misunderstand.

I am teaching you.

In this case, I would tend to side with Arny's opinion -- not the person.

Active equalization is key to matching a sub with the room.
What else can one do? At sub frequencies, treatments, absorbers, and so
forth, cannot address the problem.
The problem is that room geometry + subwoofer response-- room response.
Since it's usually impractical to add/subtract from room geometry, that
leaves two free variables:

1. Position of the sub.
2. Active equalization.

This problem is so hard to tame it's best to use both.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Go ahead, elaborate on that...

Someone else did, and it apparently shot way over your head. Heck, even
Morein gets it now.

Nahh Dormer, you aren't worth the trouble to try to educate.

You misunderstand.

I am teaching you.

Yeah Dormer, just like you taught me how to build audio cables, crash an
overclocked CPU and trash your hard drive, and write PCABX.

;-)

Robert Morein wrote:


"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
.. .
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Go ahead, elaborate on that...

Nahh Dormer, you aren't worth the trouble to try to educate.

You misunderstand.

I am teaching you.

In this case, I would tend to side with Arny's opinion -- not the person.

Active equalization is key to matching a sub with the room.
What else can one do? At sub frequencies, treatments, absorbers, and so
forth, cannot address the problem.
The problem is that room geometry + subwoofer response-- room response.
Since it's usually impractical to add/subtract from room geometry, that
leaves two free variables:

1. Position of the sub.
2. Active equalization.

This problem is so hard to tame it's best to use both.










While I have no doubt whatsoever that various room acoustical treatments
*might* help in smoothing out speaker response or help integration with a sub,
here's the problem I have with "room treatments". Whenever I've seen room
treatments discussed in variouis audio magazines (or in various audio forums),
there is never a clear exposition about just how to go about "treating the
room" for a given set of circumstances. I mean, even after taking response
curve measurements, let's say with a SPL meter (or equalizer with built in
microphone measurement functions), what to do next? I would be very reluctant
to invest in "room treatments" unless I had a dealer return privilege, because
what if they don't work?

As for the frequent complaints about equalizers adding noise and/or distortion
to the audible signal, I have an open mind on this subject, since I haven't
personally experimented with them yet. But if there are no audible artifacts
from equalization, I would think it might be useful in tailoring the sound for
a listener's preference and/or adjusting for bothersome room abnormalities in
response.

In the final analysis, I would suspect most listeners probably become
habituated subjectively to a certain "listening room sound" and depending on
their budgets and desire for change either live with it or attempt some
changes.

Since I am seriously considering some changes in my audio system, I would be
interested in hearing from any posters with a combination of tubed
preamplifier/SS amplifier (100 watts or more) in their systems - and how/if
this represented a change from an all-tubed or all-SS system with a set of
demanding speakers (e.g. electrostatics or planars).


Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



While I have no doubt whatsoever that various room acoustical
treatments *might* help in smoothing out speaker response or help
integration with a sub, here's the problem I have with "room
treatments". Whenever I've seen room treatments discussed in
variouis audio magazines (or in various audio forums), there is never
a clear exposition about just how to go about "treating the room" for
a given set of circumstances. I mean, even after taking response
curve measurements, let's say with a SPL meter (or equalizer with
built in microphone measurement functions), what to do next? I would
be very reluctant to invest in "room treatments" unless I had a
dealer return privilege, because what if they don't work?

You're barking up the wrong tree. The Hi Fi establishment doesn't seem to
know how to sell knowlege or any other technology but things that fit in
boxes that plug together with wires.

If you look to recording studio technology and publications, you will find
far more wisdom and technology. Here's a possible starting point:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

or search google for studio acoustics

As for the frequent complaints about equalizers adding noise and/or
distortion to the audible signal, I have an open mind on this
subject, since I haven't personally experimented with them yet. But
if there are no audible artifacts from equalization, I would think it
might be useful in tailoring the sound for a listener's preference
and/or adjusting for bothersome room abnormalities in response.

Not to play with your words for fun Bruce, but any equalizer that was
incapable of causing audible artifacts would be useless. Perhaps more to the
point, there are equalizers that don't audibly corrupt the music that passes
through them when set to flat response.

But, I must admit that all equalizers are only an approximate solution for
acoustic problems, and therefore they all have some what you might call
artifacts. Equalizers are the lesser of two evils, but highly recommended
when the larger evil is to not use one.

In the final analysis, I would suspect most listeners probably become
habituated subjectively to a certain "listening room sound" and
depending on their budgets and desire for change either live with it
or attempt some changes.

The most common way for audiophile to change their listening room sound is
to buy different speakers. A vast number of audiophiles have speakers that
are poorly matched to and/or positioned in their listening rooms, but are
incapable of doing anything about it but buying new speakers or throwing
less effective or ineffective solutions at the problem.

Since I am seriously considering some changes in my audio system, I
would be interested in hearing from any posters with a combination of
tubed preamplifier/SS amplifier (100 watts or more) in their systems
- and how/if this represented a change from an all-tubed or all-SS
system with a set of demanding speakers (e.g. electrostatics or
planars).

Friendly advice: Fix the room first, Bruce.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Go ahead, elaborate on that...

Nahh Dormer, you aren't worth the trouble to try to educate.

You misunderstand.

I am teaching you.

In this case, I would tend to side with Arny's opinion -- not the
person.

That makes me breathe easier!

Arny Krueger wrote:


Subject: Upgrade path - suggestions?
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/19/2004 1:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



While I have no doubt whatsoever that various room acoustical
treatments *might* help in smoothing out speaker response or help
integration with a sub, here's the problem I have with "room
treatments". Whenever I've seen room treatments discussed in
variouis audio magazines (or in various audio forums), there is never
a clear exposition about just how to go about "treating the room" for
a given set of circumstances. I mean, even after taking response
curve measurements, let's say with a SPL meter (or equalizer with
built in microphone measurement functions), what to do next? I would
be very reluctant to invest in "room treatments" unless I had a
dealer return privilege, because what if they don't work?

You're barking up the wrong tree. The Hi Fi establishment doesn't seem to
know how to sell knowlege or any other technology but things that fit in
boxes that plug together with wires.

If you look to recording studio technology and publications, you will find
far more wisdom and technology. Here's a possible starting point:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

or search google for studio acoustics


I will check them out.



As for the frequent complaints about equalizers adding noise and/or
distortion to the audible signal, I have an open mind on this
subject, since I haven't personally experimented with them yet. But
if there are no audible artifacts from equalization, I would think it
might be useful in tailoring the sound for a listener's preference
and/or adjusting for bothersome room abnormalities in response.

Not to play with your words for fun Bruce, but any equalizer that was
incapable of causing audible artifacts would be useless.

By artifacts, I didn't mean changes in frequency response per se, but rather
extraneous audible noise or distortion. And of course, I understand that
parametric equalizers can be more precise in shaping speaker/room response
curves without undesirable, or overly wide response changes.


Perhaps more to the
point, there are equalizers that don't audibly corrupt the music that passes
through them when set to flat response.

But, I must admit that all equalizers are only an approximate solution for
acoustic problems, and therefore they all have some what you might call
artifacts. Equalizers are the lesser of two evils, but highly recommended
when the larger evil is to not use one.

In the final analysis, I would suspect most listeners probably become
habituated subjectively to a certain "listening room sound" and
depending on their budgets and desire for change either live with it
or attempt some changes.

The most common way for audiophile to change their listening room sound is
to buy different speakers. A vast number of audiophiles have speakers that
are poorly matched to and/or positioned in their listening rooms, but are
incapable of doing anything about it but buying new speakers or throwing
less effective or ineffective solutions at the problem.

Since I am seriously considering some changes in my audio system, I
would be interested in hearing from any posters with a combination of
tubed preamplifier/SS amplifier (100 watts or more) in their systems
- and how/if this represented a change from an all-tubed or all-SS
system with a set of demanding speakers (e.g. electrostatics or
planars).

Friendly advice: Fix the room first, Bruce.



I think you're assuming that my room is the problem. Since I have not measured
response in the room, I don't know that to be the case. The listening room is
large enough to allow my electrostatics to have enough space both behind them
and to ths sides so that they don't have to contend, in all probability with
unwanted reflections. (Well over 4 feet from any walll - actually much more
from the sides). And since they have a dipolar radiation pattern, reflections
tend to be minimized in all likelihood. Imaging is fine. All that said, they
present a very difficult load and require a fair amount of power to sound their
best. (Manufacturer's recommendations are in the 80 to 200 watts/channel
range). And while I can get reasonable volume on most music, I'm a little
below that range (70 watts/channel) and on some material feel subjectively as
if there is a subjective sense of strain - especially on music with large
dynamic swings).

I'll consider equalization, but would probably need to add a sub at some point
if I keep these speakers. Unlike many audiophiles, I don't particularly suffer
from "upgraditis", but given my preference for planar speakers (Maggies, Quads,
Martin Logans, will probably want more power unless I switch to Quads - which
is a definite possibility).

(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63 US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months ago).






Bruce J. Richman

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Go ahead, elaborate on that...

Nahh Dormer, you aren't worth the trouble to try to educate.

You misunderstand.

I am teaching you.

In this case, I would tend to side with Arny's opinion -- not the
person.

That makes me breathe easier!



At the urging of my father, I have re-assessed my failing career as
a...well as anything, so I'm currently studying to be an amateur
pulmonologist

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



I think you're assuming that my room is the problem.

It's a darn safe assumption, unless you'v been addressing the issue all
along. Rooms rarely end up with good acoustics by accident.

Since I have not measured response in the room, I don't know that to be
the case.

Frequency response is not the sole criteria relating to room acoustics. It
may not even be the most important criteria.

The listening room is large enough to allow my electrostatics to have
enough space both behind them and to ths sides so that they don't
have to contend, in all probability with unwanted reflections. (Well
over 4 feet from any walll - actually much more from the sides). And
since they have a dipolar radiation pattern, reflections tend to be
minimized in all likelihood. Imaging is fine.

Perhaps, but then we're back to issues related to timbre.

All that said, they
present a very difficult load and require a fair amount of power to
sound their best. (Manufacturer's recommendations are in the 80 to
200 watts/channel range). And while I can get reasonable volume on
most music, I'm a little below that range (70 watts/channel) and on
some material feel subjectively as if there is a subjective sense of
strain - especially on music with large dynamic swings).

The difference between 70 watts and 200 watts is 4.5 dB. As the story goes,
it takes a 10 times increase in power to create the perception of twice as
loud. 200 watts is only somewhat louder than 70 watts. And, twice as loud is
not

I'll consider equalization, but would probably need to add a sub at
some point if I keep these speakers.

Now, there's a thought. Subs are also a way to improve dynamic range because
they can significantly offload the main speakers and amps.

Unlike many audiophiles, I
don't particularly suffer from "upgraditis", but given my preference
for planar speakers (Maggies, Quads, Martin Logans, will probably
want more power unless I switch to Quads - which is a definite
possibility).

(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63
US Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6
months ago).

You might want to look at what this RAO-er is doing on the other side of the
pond:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


"As promised here is a picture of my subwoofer. I have pushed a settee
out of the way so it can be seen, and also removed a white cloth
screen that normally covers it. So in use it is totally invisible.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/sub.jpg

"The driver is a 15 inch Adire Tempest mounted in an 80 cubic foot
concrete cupboard, which extends under a staircase on the other side
of the wall. The mounting board, which replaces the cupboard door, is
18mm MDF, braced extensively with scaffolding board, screwed and glued
edgewise onto it. It is very solid.

"The whole thing tunes pretty nicely with the room to make an almost
flat response down to something very low indeed. At the top end, it
merges and integrates very nicely with the Sonus Fabers, which take
over from about 60Hz.

"Last night's Bach was as much a visceral as an auditory experience.

From: (Bruce J. Richman)
Date: 7/18/2004 10:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Robert Morein wrote:


"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
. ..
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Go ahead, elaborate on that...

Nahh Dormer, you aren't worth the trouble to try to educate.

You misunderstand.

I am teaching you.

In this case, I would tend to side with Arny's opinion -- not the person.

Active equalization is key to matching a sub with the room.
What else can one do? At sub frequencies, treatments, absorbers, and so
forth, cannot address the problem.
The problem is that room geometry + subwoofer response-- room response.
Since it's usually impractical to add/subtract from room geometry, that
leaves two free variables:

1. Position of the sub.
2. Active equalization.

This problem is so hard to tame it's best to use both.










While I have no doubt whatsoever that various room acoustical treatments
*might* help in smoothing out speaker response or help integration with a
sub,
here's the problem I have with "room treatments". Whenever I've seen room
treatments discussed in variouis audio magazines (or in various audio
forums),
there is never a clear exposition about just how to go about "treating the
room" for a given set of circumstances. I mean, even after taking response
curve measurements, let's say with a SPL meter (or equalizer with built in
microphone measurement functions), what to do next? I would be very
reluctant
to invest in "room treatments" unless I had a dealer return privilege,
because
what if they don't work?

I recomend visiting RPG website for an excellent source fo information. I also
recomend making room treatments instead of buying them. It is ismple and very
cheap when it comes to absorbtion. One can also make inexpensive diffusors.
They may not be as good as the ones you can get from RPG but you can save a lot
of money. I think the most common problem with room treatment isn't the
difficulty of implementing it. I think it is the looks of the final result. The
most helpful thing one can do for the system is dedicate a room to it. The
compramise one often has to make with home decore and the other uses of a
shared room usually are a bigger problem than the room itself.



As for the frequent complaints about equalizers adding noise and/or
distortion
to the audible signal, I have an open mind on this subject, since I haven't
personally experimented with them yet. But if there are no audible artifacts
from equalization, I would think it might be useful in tailoring the sound
for
a listener's preference and/or adjusting for bothersome room abnormalities in
response.

In the final analysis, I would suspect most listeners probably become
habituated subjectively to a certain "listening room sound" and depending on
their budgets and desire for change either live with it or attempt some
changes.

Since I am seriously considering some changes in my audio system, I would be
interested in hearing from any posters with a combination of tubed
preamplifier/SS amplifier (100 watts or more) in their systems - and how/if
this represented a change from an all-tubed or all-SS system with a set of
demanding speakers (e.g. electrostatics or planars).

If you are sticking with the Martin Logans I'd say stick with the tubes. And
*always* audition any amp first. IME The Martin Logans offer many surprises
with various amps. Many of them not good.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
(Wonders why subs are a big deal for HT - when you can just get
a bunch of 8-12 inchers in your towers and ignore most of this
nonsense)

Wonders why full-range speakers are a big deal - when you can just
get one subwoofer and ignore most of this expense.

I am repeating myself, but see this white paper, specifically around
page 9, 10:

http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=122
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt3.pdf

and
http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1003
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

From: (Bruce J. Richman)
Date: 7/18/2004 11:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


I think you're assuming that my room is the problem. Since I have not
measured
response in the room, I don't know that to be the case. The listening room
is
large enough to allow my electrostatics to have enough space both behind them
and to ths sides so that they don't have to contend, in all probability with
unwanted reflections. (Well over 4 feet from any walll - actually much more
from the sides). And since they have a dipolar radiation pattern,
reflections
tend to be minimized in all likelihood. Imaging is fine.


Are you using any absorbtion against the rear wall?

All that said,
they
present a very difficult load and require a fair amount of power to sound
their
best. (Manufacturer's recommendations are in the 80 to 200 watts/channel
range). And while I can get reasonable volume on most music, I'm a little
below that range (70 watts/channel) and on some material feel subjectively as
if there is a subjective sense of strain - especially on music with large
dynamic swings).


No amount of power will ever completely cure this problem. It is one of the few
inherent weaknesses of the speakers. A Good sub, I recomend the Vanderstenn)
will do more to help this issue along with one other of the very few problems
this speaker suffers from, lack of flat deep bass.




I'll consider equalization, but would probably need to add a sub at some
point
if I keep these speakers. Unlike many audiophiles, I don't particularly
suffer
from "upgraditis", but given my preference for planar speakers (Maggies,
Quads,
Martin Logans, will probably want more power unless I switch to Quads - which
is a definite possibility).

(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63 US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months ago).

The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are actually more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

Bruce:
(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63 US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months ago).

The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are actually more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

A step to the side and you'll hear the dispersion problems of ML's
curved panels.

My experience with the ML IIs is limited, but I did not find them more
dynamic than Quad 63s. On the plus side, compared to other ML's: no
dynamic woofer to integrate. I wonder if trying to deal with that
problem helped their subwoofer design.

Stephen

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 8:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

Bruce:
(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63 US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months ago).


The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are actually
more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

A step to the side and you'll hear the dispersion problems of ML's
curved panels.

True. We have now covered 3 of the four problems I have with these exceptional
speakers. Not bad for a speaker that retailed for under 10 grand.



My experience with the ML IIs is limited, but I did not find them more
dynamic than Quad 63s. On the plus side, compared to other ML's: no
dynamic woofer to integrate.

No dynamic woofer to integrate with the CLS IIz either? are we talking about
the same ML? Our experiences with the dynamics of the two respective speakers,
the CLS IIzs and the Quad 63s are quite different.

I wonder if trying to deal with that
problem helped their subwoofer design.

I'm suspect dealing with that problem in their hybrid speakers helped. I am
also confident their development of the Statement speakers helped as well.

From: The Devil s
Date: 7/19/2004 9:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: z

On 19 Jul 2004 15:19:30 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

The Quads are a step to the side at best.

No, they're not.


Maybe not but. I was being generous to the Quads. But I could understand why
some might prefer the Quads, They are excellent speakers too with a different
overall balance of qualities and liabilities.

"Arny Krueger" said:

The difference between 70 watts and 200 watts is 4.5 dB. As the story goes,
it takes a 10 times increase in power to create the perception of twice as
loud. 200 watts is only somewhat louder than 70 watts. And, twice as loud is
not

Watts aren't the problem, constant voltage is.
A "200 Watts" amplifier is most likely to deliver more current in
lower reactive loads at say 10 Veff output than a "70 watts" amp.

IHF says that an "8 ohms" speaker shouldn't have dips below 6,5 ohms.
In practice, many speakers DO exhibit vastly lower impedances at some
frequencies, especially when measured with burst signals.
Matti Otala wrote about this ca. 1984, he found that some "8 ohms"
speakers showed impedance dips around 2,5 ohms.

This may well be one of the reasons why some amplifiers sound
different than others on the same speakers.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

From: The Devil s
Date: 7/19/2004 10:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: z

On 19 Jul 2004 17:04:57 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

The Quads are a step to the side at best.

No, they're not.


Maybe not but. I was being generous to the Quads.

Oh yeah. That's hilarious. Most MLs are ****ing crap. They sound
weird, insubstantial, and have very obvious resonances (at least, *I*
find them infuriating) caused by their broken, buckled panels.

You should consider listening to a pair that are not obviously damaged and/or
abused before passing judgement. I suspect any speaker will sound like crap if
it is damaged badly enough.


But I could understand why
some might prefer the Quads, They are excellent speakers too with a
different
overall balance of qualities and liabilities.

Add big infinite baffle subs and there's nothing better than them.


IYO. I have heard them with top notch subs. They are excellent. I prefer what I
have now by a substantial margin. But I am glad you are so enthusiastic about
what you have.

From: The Devil s
Date: 7/19/2004 11:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: z

On 19 Jul 2004 17:40:40 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

You should consider listening to a pair that are not obviously damaged
and/or
abused before passing judgement. I suspect any speaker will sound like crap
if
it is damaged badly enough.

Bleh. You're no fun at all.

IYO.

No. In everyone's opinion.

I have heard them with top notch subs.

Which ones?

The Entecs. I foget the model number.



They are excellent.

In what way?

Very smooth, More transparent than nonelectrostatic speakers. Why are you
asking? Don't you own Quads?



I prefer what I have now by a substantial margin.

No, you don't.

But I am glad you are so enthusiastic about what you have.

That's nice for both of us.

--
td

Sander deWaal wrote:


"Arny Krueger" said:

The difference between 70 watts and 200 watts is 4.5 dB. As the story goes,
it takes a 10 times increase in power to create the perception of twice as
loud. 200 watts is only somewhat louder than 70 watts. And, twice as loud is
not

Watts aren't the problem, constant voltage is.
A "200 Watts" amplifier is most likely to deliver more current in
lower reactive loads at say 10 Veff output than a "70 watts" amp.

IHF says that an "8 ohms" speaker shouldn't have dips below 6,5 ohms.
In practice, many speakers DO exhibit vastly lower impedances at some
frequencies, especially when measured with burst signals.
Matti Otala wrote about this ca. 1984, he found that some "8 ohms"
speakers showed impedance dips around 2,5 ohms.

This may well be one of the reasons why some amplifiers sound
different than others on the same speakers.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."








The Martin Logan CLS II speakers have an impedance curve that goes well below 2
ohms at high frequencies (around 1.5 or a little lower). I drive them through
the 4 ohm tap of a Conrad Johnson Premier 11A with 70 watts/channel. There is
no 2 ohm tap option available. The impedance curve varies from about 1.5 to 30
ohms, if I recall correctly.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


The Martin Logan CLS II speakers have an impedance curve that goes
well below 2 ohms at high frequencies (around 1.5 or a little lower).
I drive them through the 4 ohm tap of a Conrad Johnson Premier 11A
with 70 watts/channel. There is no 2 ohm tap option available. The
impedance curve varies from about 1.5 to 30 ohms, if I recall
correctly.

That's the usual published story.

http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/M...t_response.htm

Figure 5

If you drive these speakers from the output of a typical tubed power amp
with a DF of say 8 and the 4 ohm tap, the tubed amp acts like a SS amplifier
with a 0.5 ohm resistor in series with it. This leads to an approximate
response dip of about 2.5 dB in the range the frequency of the impedance
dip, which is around 20 KHz. Probably not all that audible.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


The Martin Logan CLS II speakers have an impedance curve that goes
well below 2 ohms at high frequencies (around 1.5 or a little lower).
I drive them through the 4 ohm tap of a Conrad Johnson Premier 11A
with 70 watts/channel. There is no 2 ohm tap option available. The
impedance curve varies from about 1.5 to 30 ohms, if I recall
correctly.

That's the usual published story.

http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/M...t_response.htm

Figure 5

If you drive these speakers from the output of a typical tubed power amp
with a DF of say 8 and the 4 ohm tap, the tubed amp acts like a SS amplifier
with a 0.5 ohm resistor in series with it. This leads to an approximate
response dip of about 2.5 dB in the range the frequency of the impedance
dip, which is around 20 KHz. Probably not all that audible.










My model is a later model than the one Martin Colloms reviewed. He reviewed
the original Martin Logan CLS speakers, whereas mine are CLS IIs with a
slightly more benign impedance curve and better overall response than the
earlier model. However, you're probably correct re. a rolloff at about 20 KHz
or above. I don't really notice any rolloff, but of course, I'm sure my
hearing goes nowhere near that high either. Higher pitched instruments such as
triangle, piccolo, etc. are reproduced OK, but my experience is that at both
relative ends of the frequency spectrum, there is a decrease in output,
subjrectively speaking. Of course, this is what the published response curve
would predict as well.

Re. subs, I am seriously considering either a Vandersteen or REL sub to augment
the low end. A number of ML users I've corresponded with have had good results
with both brands. Interestingly, both are designed more for bottom end
augmentation then for "taking over" part of the full-range speaker's natural
response range. And both are recommended to be connected through the speaker,
rather than the line level, outputs. Perhaps I'm biased towards this approach,
because a number of years ago, I used an M&K sub (one of their very early
models) with a pair of original Quads (great speakers within their limits, but
also quite frail and midrangey) in which the sub was *also* connected (through
a passive crossover matrix) through the speaker outputs. This combination
worked quite well.



Bruce J. Richman

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 8:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

Bruce:
(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63 US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months ago).


The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are actually
more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

A step to the side and you'll hear the dispersion problems of ML's
curved panels.

True. We have now covered 3 of the four problems I have with these exceptional
speakers. Not bad for a speaker that retailed for under 10 grand.

And the 63s were cheaper, without the dispersion problem or ghostly
imaging.

My experience with the ML IIs is limited, but I did not find them more
dynamic than Quad 63s. On the plus side, compared to other ML's: no
dynamic woofer to integrate.

No dynamic woofer to integrate with the CLS IIz either? are we talking about
the same ML? Our experiences with the dynamics of the two respective speakers,
the CLS IIzs and the Quad 63s are quite different.

http://www.martinloganowners.com/ph_clsIIz.html

No, I don't see a woofer. Kinergetics made a companion sub tower, as I'm
sure you're aware.

Maybe our experiences are different, and it could be that the
insubstantial imaging characteristic Thine himself reports prevented me
from appreciating those dynamics. Perhaps the 63s you heard were in too
large a room.

I wonder if trying to deal with that
problem helped their subwoofer design.

I'm suspect dealing with that problem in their hybrid speakers helped. I am
also confident their development of the Statement speakers helped as well.

If I'm ever in the market for a sub smaller than the great outdoors...

Michael wrote:


In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 8:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

Bruce:
(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63
US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months
ago).


The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are actually
more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

A step to the side and you'll hear the dispersion problems of ML's
curved panels.

True. We have now covered 3 of the four problems I have with these
exceptional
speakers. Not bad for a speaker that retailed for under 10 grand.

And the 63s were cheaper, without the dispersion problem or ghostly
imaging.


Actuially, in the US, the 63s were *more* expensive, retailing for $ 6000/pair
for a number of years prior to their discontinuation. Re. thye Martin Logan
CLS IIzs, until about the last year or 2 prior to *their* discontinuation,
which was about 2 or 3 years ago, they retailed in the US for no more than $
4500/pair for most of their life span (and less during earlier stages).



My experience with the ML IIs is limited, but I did not find them more
dynamic than Quad 63s. On the plus side, compared to other ML's: no
dynamic woofer to integrate.

No dynamic woofer to integrate with the CLS IIz either? are we talking
about
the same ML? Our experiences with the dynamics of the two respective
speakers,
the CLS IIzs and the Quad 63s are quite different.

http://www.martinloganowners.com/ph_clsIIz.html

No, I don't see a woofer. Kinergetics made a companion sub tower, as I'm
sure you're aware.

Maybe our experiences are different, and it could be that the
insubstantial imaging characteristic Thine himself reports prevented me
from appreciating those dynamics. Perhaps the 63s you heard were in too
large a room.

I wonder if trying to deal with that
problem helped their subwoofer design.

I'm suspect dealing with that problem in their hybrid speakers helped. I am
also confident their development of the Statement speakers helped as well.

If I'm ever in the market for a sub smaller than the great outdoors...










Bruce J. Richman

In article ,
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:

Me:
And the 63s were cheaper, without the dispersion problem or ghostly
imaging.

Actuially, in the US, the 63s were *more* expensive, retailing for $ 6000/pair
for a number of years prior to their discontinuation. Re. thye Martin Logan
CLS IIzs, until about the last year or 2 prior to *their* discontinuation,
which was about 2 or 3 years ago, they retailed in the US for no more than $
4500/pair for most of their life span (and less during earlier stages).

I was going by the ML page that priced the MLs at just under $6k vs my
memory that put the Quads at $4.5k. Well, memory is fallible.

This page, from Stereophile Vol.10 No.1, prices an earlier version of
the ML at $2490:

http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/M.../flat_response
..htm

Hmm. "Without claiming sonic superiority for the Quad 63, the response
for this model under identical conditions (fig.10) makes for an
Interesting comparison."

Sam Tellig prices the Quads (also in Vol.10 No.1) at $2950/pair.

Stephen

Stephen wrote:


In article ,
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:

Me:
And the 63s were cheaper, without the dispersion problem or ghostly
imaging.

Actuially, in the US, the 63s were *more* expensive, retailing for $
6000/pair
for a number of years prior to their discontinuation. Re. thye Martin
Logan
CLS IIzs, until about the last year or 2 prior to *their* discontinuation,
which was about 2 or 3 years ago, they retailed in the US for no more than
$
4500/pair for most of their life span (and less during earlier stages).

I was going by the ML page that priced the MLs at just under $6k vs my
memory that put the Quads at $4.5k. Well, memory is fallible.


As I indicated, the page you cited was only the price during the last 1 or 2
yrs. of that speaker's long life span. Their earlier price was between $ 2500
and most of the time, $ 4500.


This page, from Stereophile Vol.10 No.1, prices an earlier version of
the ML at $2490:


Yes - perhaps 15 years ago with an earlier version, but not the Martin Logan
CLS II models for most of the last decade at least that they were sold.


http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/M.../flat_response
.htm

Hmm. "Without claiming sonic superiority for the Quad 63, the response
for this model under identical conditions (fig.10) makes for an
Interesting comparison."

Sam Tellig prices the Quads (also in Vol.10 No.1) at $2950/pair.


Again, about 15 years ago. In recent times (say the last 10 years), and during
most of that span, the Quads were $ 6000 and the ML's $ 4500. No doubt, the
situation may well have been reversed in the UK.







Stephen









Bruce J. Richman

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 8:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

Bruce:
(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63
US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months
ago).


The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are actually
more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

A step to the side and you'll hear the dispersion problems of ML's
curved panels.

True. We have now covered 3 of the four problems I have with these
exceptional
speakers. Not bad for a speaker that retailed for under 10 grand.

And the 63s were cheaper, without the dispersion problem or ghostly
imaging.

They were never cheaper at any time they were both in production. I never found
the imaging from the CLSs to be ghostly in any way.



My experience with the ML IIs is limited, but I did not find them more
dynamic than Quad 63s. On the plus side, compared to other ML's: no
dynamic woofer to integrate.

No dynamic woofer to integrate with the CLS IIz either? are we talking
about
the same ML? Our experiences with the dynamics of the two respective
speakers,
the CLS IIzs and the Quad 63s are quite different.



No, I don't see a woofer. Kinergetics made a companion sub tower, as I'm
sure you're aware.

Yeah, it was quite good if you had room for it.



Maybe our experiences are different, and it could be that the
insubstantial imaging characteristic Thine himself reports prevented me
from appreciating those dynamics. Perhaps the 63s you heard were in too
large a room.

Iv'e heard them many times in many rooms. I like them very much too. But the
difference I hear in dynamics really is noticable on Jazz. I'm not saying I
thought the quads were terrible in this regard but I think dynamics and deep
bass are the speaker's two Achilles heels.



I wonder if trying to deal with that
problem helped their subwoofer design.

I'm suspect dealing with that problem in their hybrid speakers helped. I am
also confident their development of the Statement speakers helped as well.

If I'm ever in the market for a sub smaller than the great outdoors...

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 8:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

Bruce:
(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63
US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months
ago).


The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are
actually
more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

A step to the side and you'll hear the dispersion problems of ML's
curved panels.

True. We have now covered 3 of the four problems I have with these
exceptional
speakers. Not bad for a speaker that retailed for under 10 grand.

And the 63s were cheaper, without the dispersion problem or ghostly
imaging.

They were never cheaper at any time they were both in production.

I stand corrected. I was comparing late ML to early Quad.

I never found the imaging from the CLSs to be ghostly in any way.

I'm not alone in this characterization.

My experience with the ML IIs is limited, but I did not find them more
dynamic than Quad 63s. On the plus side, compared to other ML's: no
dynamic woofer to integrate.

No dynamic woofer to integrate with the CLS IIz either? are we talking
about
the same ML? Our experiences with the dynamics of the two respective
speakers,
the CLS IIzs and the Quad 63s are quite different.



No, I don't see a woofer. Kinergetics made a companion sub tower, as I'm
sure you're aware.

Yeah, it was quite good if you had room for it.

I've only seen them.

Maybe our experiences are different, and it could be that the
insubstantial imaging characteristic Thine himself reports prevented me
from appreciating those dynamics. Perhaps the 63s you heard were in too
large a room.

Iv'e heard them many times in many rooms. I like them very much too. But the
difference I hear in dynamics really is noticable on Jazz. I'm not saying I
thought the quads were terrible in this regard but I think dynamics and deep
bass are the speaker's two Achilles heels.

This is confusing to me based on my experience. I can see how someone
might mistake box speaker distortion for dynamics, but I don't see how
one could call ML's dynamic but Quads undynamic.

As for deep bass, maybe, but the Martin Colloms Stereophile review Arny
and I linked shows the 63s flat to 30 Hz, so the subjective experience
wouldn't necessarily be light-weight. I like jazz double bass on the
Quads. And there's chest-thump at times, although that's not deep bass.

Oh, well. At this rate it'll be duelling Kodo drums at fifteen paces...

Stephen

Scott Wheeler wrote:


From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 8:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

Bruce:
(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63
US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months
ago).


The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are
actually
more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

A step to the side and you'll hear the dispersion problems of ML's
curved panels.

True. We have now covered 3 of the four problems I have with these
exceptional
speakers. Not bad for a speaker that retailed for under 10 grand.

And the 63s were cheaper, without the dispersion problem or ghostly
imaging.

They were never cheaper at any time they were both in production. I never
found
the imaging from the CLSs to be ghostly in any way.



Agreed. They've pretty much always been more expensive than the Quads except
for the last year or so of their production when ML raised their price to $
6000. The Quads sold for $ 6000 for quite a few years here. The imaging on my
pair is fine - very natural localizatoin of instruments and a convincing center
fill with vocalists nicely centered.



My experience with the ML IIs is limited, but I did not find them more
dynamic than Quad 63s. On the plus side, compared to other ML's: no
dynamic woofer to integrate.

No dynamic woofer to integrate with the CLS IIz either? are we talking
about
the same ML? Our experiences with the dynamics of the two respective
speakers,
the CLS IIzs and the Quad 63s are quite different.



No, I don't see a woofer. Kinergetics made a companion sub tower, as I'm
sure you're aware.

Yeah, it was quite good if you had room for it.



Maybe our experiences are different, and it could be that the
insubstantial imaging characteristic Thine himself reports prevented me
from appreciating those dynamics. Perhaps the 63s you heard were in too
large a room.

Iv'e heard them many times in many rooms. I like them very much too. But the
difference I hear in dynamics really is noticable on Jazz. I'm not saying I
thought the quads were terrible in this regard but I think dynamics and deep
bass are the speaker's two Achilles heels.



I wonder if trying to deal with that
problem helped their subwoofer design.

I'm suspect dealing with that problem in their hybrid speakers helped. I
am
also confident their development of the Statement speakers helped as well.

If I'm ever in the market for a sub smaller than the great outdoors...

















Bruce J. Richman

ERRATA !!!


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Scott Wheeler wrote:


From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: MINe 109
Date: 7/19/2004 8:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

Bruce:
(I'm still kicking myself for not making an offer on a set of Quad 63
US
Monitors/Gradient subwoofers I saw listed on Audiogon about 6 months
ago).


The Quads are a step to the side at best. The Martin Logans are
actually
more
dynamic. Don't kick yourself.

A step to the side and you'll hear the dispersion problems of ML's
curved panels.

True. We have now covered 3 of the four problems I have with these
exceptional
speakers. Not bad for a speaker that retailed for under 10 grand.

And the 63s were cheaper, without the dispersion problem or ghostly
imaging.

They were never cheaper at any time they were both in production. I never
found
the imaging from the CLSs to be ghostly in any way.



Agreed. They've pretty much always been more expensive than the Quads except
for the last year or so of their production when ML raised their price to $
6000.

This should read: "They've pretty much always been LESS EXPENSIVE than the
Quads................."


The Quads sold for $ 6000 for quite a few years here. The imaging on
my
pair is fine - very natural localizatoin of instruments and a convincing
center
fill with vocalists nicely centered.



My experience with the ML IIs is limited, but I did not find them more
dynamic than Quad 63s. On the plus side, compared to other ML's: no
dynamic woofer to integrate.

No dynamic woofer to integrate with the CLS IIz either? are we talking
about
the same ML? Our experiences with the dynamics of the two respective
speakers,
the CLS IIzs and the Quad 63s are quite different.



No, I don't see a woofer. Kinergetics made a companion sub tower, as I'm
sure you're aware.

Yeah, it was quite good if you had room for it.



Maybe our experiences are different, and it could be that the
insubstantial imaging characteristic Thine himself reports prevented me
from appreciating those dynamics. Perhaps the 63s you heard were in too
large a room.

Iv'e heard them many times in many rooms. I like them very much too. But the
difference I hear in dynamics really is noticable on Jazz. I'm not saying I
thought the quads were terrible in this regard but I think dynamics and deep
bass are the speaker's two Achilles heels.



I wonder if trying to deal with that
problem helped their subwoofer design.

I'm suspect dealing with that problem in their hybrid speakers helped. I
am
also confident their development of the Statement speakers helped as
well.

If I'm ever in the market for a sub smaller than the great outdoors...

















Bruce J. Richman












Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:
[snip]
While I have no doubt whatsoever that various room acoustical treatments
*might* help in smoothing out speaker response or help integration with a
sub,
here's the problem I have with "room treatments". Whenever I've seen room
treatments discussed in variouis audio magazines (or in various audio
forums),
there is never a clear exposition about just how to go about "treating the
room" for a given set of circumstances. I mean, even after taking
response
curve measurements, let's say with a SPL meter (or equalizer with built in
microphone measurement functions), what to do next? I would be very
reluctant
to invest in "room treatments" unless I had a dealer return privilege,
because
what if they don't work?

As for the frequent complaints about equalizers adding noise and/or
distortion
to the audible signal, I have an open mind on this subject, since I
haven't
personally experimented with them yet. But if there are no audible
artifacts
from equalization, I would think it might be useful in tailoring the sound
for
a listener's preference and/or adjusting for bothersome room abnormalities
in
response.

Equalizers have a strong basis for sub equalization, for the following
reason: any room treatments, to be effective, would have to be on the order
of the wavelength, which is in turn on the order of the room size. Such
treatments can only be imagined in the context of Woody Allen being chased
by giant boobs in EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX BUT WERE AFRAID TO
ASK.

However, at higher frequencies, equalizers are not very useful, at least in
terms of being the primary step. Even if one assumes that the equalizer is
reasonably nondistorting, which is certainly possible, there is a
psychoacoustic issue. Frequency response as measured by a microphone
consists of direct and reflected sound, but the ear is smarter than the
microphone. The ear makes a distinction between direct sound, early
reflections, and late reflections. Apparently, the ear is able to process
the timbre of direct and early sound apart from late reflections, which is a
tribute to our hearing apparatus, but it means that there is no clear
relationship between the response a microphone detects in a room, which is
what one usually equalizes, and the apparent timbre perceived by the ear.

Several years ago, I posted a question of the following natu Is there a
coherent theory that explains how to set an equalizer for optimal response,
as perceived by the ear. I received in response suggestions such as "adjust
it till it sounds right", but this is of little use with parametric
equalizers or those with large numbers of bands, which can presumably make
the finest adjustments.

I have several parametric equalizers, a paragraphic, and a 33 band eq. Much
to my chagrin, I have never found a way to make more than a trivial
adjustment, such as to compensate for temporarily stopped up ears, or a
bright or dull recording.

There exist pulse test systems, primarily for loudspeaker designers, that
would probably give an excellent indication how to adjust an equalizer.
However, these systems are far more expensive, I believe prohibitively so,
for most individuals.

I have had much more success using the admittedly mediocre foam material
"Sonex" to reduce midrange early reflections with my corner placed speakers.
These unimpressive panels greatly increase the clarity, by reducing the
smearing caused by reflected sound arriving at the listener's ears very
close to the direct sound. There are, as Arny states, extremely
sophisticated room treatments, encompassing diffusion as well as absorption,
which have proven application in the most sophisticated mixing venues. It is
impossible to underestimate how much audiophiles disadvantage themselves by
not considering the room to be part of the reproduction chain.

I suspect that equalizers are useful, but probably only in rooms that have
already been well treated.

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

The Martin Logan CLS II speakers have an impedance curve that goes well below 2
ohms at high frequencies (around 1.5 or a little lower). I drive them through
the 4 ohm tap of a Conrad Johnson Premier 11A with 70 watts/channel. There is
no 2 ohm tap option available. The impedance curve varies from about 1.5 to 30
ohms, if I recall correctly.

It looks worse than it is.
The dips occur only in the high frequencies, where the spectral energy
is lower.
Another thing is the capacitive character at higher frequencies of the
ML panels.
Your CJ shouldn't have problems with that, other than a subjective
impression of compression of the soundstage at high listening levels.

Nevertheless, you should try a tube pre/SS poweramp combo sometimes.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:

The Martin Logan CLS II speakers have an impedance curve that goes well
below 2
ohms at high frequencies (around 1.5 or a little lower). I drive them
through
the 4 ohm tap of a Conrad Johnson Premier 11A with 70 watts/channel. There
is
no 2 ohm tap option available. The impedance curve varies from about 1.5 to
30
ohms, if I recall correctly.

It looks worse than it is.
The dips occur only in the high frequencies, where the spectral energy
is lower.
Another thing is the capacitive character at higher frequencies of the
ML panels.
Your CJ shouldn't have problems with that, other than a subjective
impression of compression of the soundstage at high listening levels.

Nevertheless, you should try a tube pre/SS poweramp combo sometimes.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."








I do plan to audition some SS amplifiers in combination with my tubed
preamplifier in the not too distant future. While I haven't had a chance to
audition one yet, I've heard that the CJ SS amplifiers are well made and have a
very similar timbral character to their tubed offerings. Therefore, that will
be on my list of amps to audition. The only brand I would probably rule out,
based on prior listening experiences with ML speakers, is Krell, whose sound
has always struck me as relatively "lean" or analytical. I prefer amplifiers
that don't have that quality.



Bruce J. Richman

The Devil wrote:


On 20 Jul 2004 17:52:45 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:

I do plan to audition some SS amplifiers in combination with my tubed
preamplifier in the not too distant future. While I haven't had a chance to
audition one yet, I've heard that the CJ SS amplifiers are well made and
have a
very similar timbral character to their tubed offerings. Therefore, that
will
be on my list of amps to audition. The only brand I would probably rule
out,
based on prior listening experiences with ML speakers, is Krell, whose sound
has always struck me as relatively "lean" or analytical. I prefer
amplifiers
that don't have that quality.

If you're thinking about bringing Quads into your life, especially
989s, I would seriously consider sticking with the valve amp.

--
td








It's one of the optoins I'm considering. My CJ amplifier would probably match
very nicely with Quads.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

It's one of the optoins I'm considering. My CJ amplifier
would probably match very nicely with Quads.

Have you ever considered looking at dynamic speakers
sympathetic to your tubed power amp like Coincident’s
Super ($6K) and Total Eclipse ($8K)?

http://www.coincidentspeaker.com/total_eclipse.htm

(chunky_john) said:

I feel I must take the opportunity to follow up my original post,
which has really not generated any help for me at all. Few of you seem
to have actually read the question, hence several tangential
responses. Take note - I don't want multichannel, and I have just
bought new speakers. I wanted suggestions on CD player and
amplification.

Recently, my TEAC VRDS 10 died.
I got a Pioneer PD-S09 from Ebay Germany for 120 euro ($150).
Cleaned the lens, adjusted the focus and it plays quite well again.
It's a stable platter mechanism and for Japanese terms heavily
builded.
In fact, in standard issue it sounds better than my modified TEAC.
Of course, I intend to mod it when the time comes :-)

Amplifiers: I roll my own, that's still the best if you want quality
for few $$$.

Without knowing some more background like what speakers, sources, what
kind of music you like, room treatment etc. it's kinda hard to advise
you about an amplifier or source.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."