Superteweeters?

[Audiognome]

Sorry, can't resist butting in just once more ...

Originally Posted by pre65

No need to stay in the closet !!

Just call yourself a "railway enthusiast" and be free to enjoy the delights of STEAM.

Thanks for your kind support, Phil , but I'm really not a railway enthusiast (not that there's anything wrong with that!). I was just picking up on Greg's comment about philately

Others above have made my point, far more eloquently than I did. The recording process more than often isn't as "audiophiles" would like it to be and we shouldn't get all precious and defensive about that - take everything at face value - if it sounds good to you, then what does it matter what went into the recording (or didn't)?

And yes, I just knew somebody was going to say that they made a fantastic recording by sticking two microphones in front of a band. Fine - but that isn't generally the way commercial recordings are made, at least not in the rock/pop genre - Ian's description was more accurate - doesn't mean they are automatically "bad" recordings and nor did Ian say they were, did he?

Sorry, we really should get back to supertweeters, I'll shut up

[Ianm2]

err, I'm certainly not gunning for a fight, Greg.

I do feel you have interpreted my post wrong.

There is nothing negative in it, its factually accurate, its what happens, that's all, that's all I tried to say, someone, Philip, asked what goes on, and I simply gave an account with a bit of historical background to the recording process, and the tools used therein to get control of it and get it acceptable to the equipment its recorded on.

Its not a biased account, its not my deluded opinion, its what happens, I don't believe I said it makes it unlistenable.

Nowhere did I lambast it, blast it, say it makes music unlistenable, I simply said that the notion of closest to the original is nonsense, as its been through all that circuitry, nowhere did I say that was bad, I simply said it was altered.

I would, and this IS I acknowledge a contentious personal opinion, say that there is no such thing as the original....what do I mean? I mean that all parts of a song are recorded normally in isolation, mixed together, and processed in the way outlined above, so what's the original? what's accurate? ATC monitors, pmc? harbeths, quested, if they are all accurate, yet sound different, that's nonsense.

That's not biased, its just logic. above all I believe I am rational when analysing these things.


Bake a cake, flour uncooked tastes horrid, mix it with eggs and heat it, it becomes sublime, likewise with a solitary electric guitar, naff on its own, put a bass and drums in, distort it, and magic can and does happen.

modern stuff is recorded digitally, sometimes even guitars aren't put through marshall stacks, but even use dsp to simulate them, and its put onto hard drive, and typcially gets a clean approach, using a process called normalizing, which squeezes the last ounce of loudness out of it before distortion ensues.

Again, some of the magic is lost, so they attempt to restore it with signal processing, on the contrary, I believe I actually said the early colouration of valve and transformer circuitry was beneficial, and the fact that the stuff is so revered and yields astronomical s/h prices is testiment to the fact its indispensible.

I for one actually like colouration, I don't listen for accuracy, closest to the original, as I don't believe that's possible, I listen to music to enjoy the sound, and some things I like.

I have spent a lot of time studying sound, how its recorded, what factors it consists of, the magic 4....pitch, volume, harmonics, phase.

When it came towards the end, i simply said I tried to isolate the factors that music consisted of, to see if I could 'colour' it any which way, and I found I coudln't no matter how hard I tried simply make one speaker sound like another, create a smile resopnse on the graphic to simulate a pair of proacs, and it didn't, I conculded there was far more to sound than simply frequency response alone, and you couldn't dissect it, then attempt to recreate something else, so I concluded its a complex thing that isn't easily analysed in terms of the things we know.

I then went on to explain, again my own opinion, but backed up by years of playing, that I do find modern equipment more clean and clinical, and I like the colouration that old fashioned big componets cause, and I theorised its to do with modern man made processed materials, and having collected literally hundreds of amplifier schematics, did find SOME connection between over elaborate circuitry and lack of emotional musicality/ sound that floated my boat.

my own opinion yes, but I attempted to explain it, that's all, nothing more.

I actually think it adds to the magic, to say that one can't explain it simplistically like noel attempts to do..."this suckout will soften vocals here, rising treble will give a hard forward sound...."

and simply conclude its magic, unexplainable, why one speaker sounds wonderful and another dreadful, and its no part of the designer but some not yet understood myserious process going on inside at a micro level perhaps?

That's pretty rational I think.

It IS a scientific approach : theory, if I simulate the freq. response of proacs, they will sound the same. tested, results: they do not sound the same. conclusion: there must be something else...ad inf.

the last bit in the other posts was my own opinion based upon years of experience in this matter.

I may come to incorrect conclusions, go down the wrong paths, you may disagree, you are entitled to

however, I try to base my results upon reason, rational thinking, and logic, years of experience dissecting amps, sound, reading, listening, looking at circuits.

I hear what you say, but you really did misinterpret it quite badly in this instance.



thanks for the kind sentiments philip

again, not 'fighting', but could you point to the bits you see as negative, wrong, inaccurate and deluded in those posts please?

best wishes.

[Ianm2]

and to correct a misconception, I haven't said I disliked valves, i like them very much, they are simple circuitry, sound good, usually easy to fault find, but I don't find any joy anymore in building them, running them, hot running, making noises, buzzing transformers, always worried if they will blow up

Its not I dislike them per se, they aren't simply compatible with what my requirements now.

oenologists say that wines growing in different soil composition with different winds, sun, ripening conditions taste different and 'colour' the taste, I think its perhaps logical to say that valves made with american material processing may sound different to say russian or chinese ones, because of the materials, even if made to the same spec./tolerances? logical?

I tihnk so

[Cobblers]

Ian you said:
"I for one actually like colouration"

Are you likening it to fine wines? say the difference say from a NOS Mullard EL34 or W/E 300B? (two coloured tubes you might hate with a passion for all I know?).
do you feel that you prefer pleasantly exaggerated harmonics?

Surely you mean you like to hear a convincing reproduction of the tonal colour of the instruments, vibrance of the performance, acoustic of the venue or modifications/technique or layering used within a recording?

Though I admit no Hifi is without colouration (much of it in a big way caused by the listening room) and in a way you have to choose the lesser evil as far as your own ears go (especially within speakers) but you actually like colouration?

We need to clarify what is meant by colouration if we say this. Which is good colouration?
punchy bass, extended highs, sweetened treble or boxy bass boom, recessed mid's, crude obvious break up.......

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Cobblers

Ian you said:
"I for one actually like colouration"

Are you likening it to fine wines? say the difference say from a NOS Mullard EL34 or W/E 300B? (two coloured tubes you might hate with a passion for all I know?).
do you feel that you prefer pleasantly exaggerated harmonics?

Surely you mean you like to hear a convincing reproduction of the tonal colour of the instruments, vibrance of the performance, acoustic of the venue or modifications/technique or layering used within a recording?

Though I admit no Hifi is without colouration (much of it in a big way caused by the listening room) and in a way you have to choose the lesser evil as far as your own ears go (especially within speakers) but you actually like colouration?

We need to clarify what is meant by colouration if we say this. Which is good colouration?
punchy bass, extended highs, sweetened treble or boxy bass boom, recessed mid's, crude obvious break up.......

Doesn't really matter, does it? You either like it or you don't. At least, that's all that's ever bothered me.

Brian

[Cobblers]

Fair dooz!

Then we need to do away with the term High Fidelity, replace it with something else........how about "Musical Garnish"?

[Greg.]

Hi Ian,

Reading your last two well presented posts I realise that I have probably got hold of the wrong end of the stick. My fault. Maybe I should have thought a little harder before I replied

It maybe something to do with my overall observations on what you write here. In my view you are inclined to be a bit inconsistant. One time you are rating KLS3 and then later you are slamming them down. You have some pet theories which I think are flawed such as replacing a choke with a single equivalent resistor etc. This worries me a little because it has the potential IMHO to mislead the less well informed.

Anyway, thanks for your explaination and please accept my apologies for a misguided response, delivered in my usual (and in this case inapropriate) robust style.

Best wishes,

Greg

[Ianm2]

The resistor/choke thing is an easy, reversible mod with 2 solder connections.

It was said as a trial, to see if people preferred it, as pp topologies cancel out psu noise, and don't require as quiet a psu as a single ended one, which have little resistance to power supply rejection.

That's why, it was simply a try and see, that's easily reversible. ITS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU DO AND WILL COCK UP YOUR AMP. ITS 2 JOINTS THAT YOU CAN PUT BACK IN AT ANY TIME YOU WISH!!! ITS NO BIG DEAL.

Its based upon sound engineering design spec. for a pp power supply vs. a single ended requirements, and a C-R-C will easily satisfy that, so its not really a personal pet theory as such. A choke isn't required to meet the ripple criteria, that's all.

If I say something I have backed up with theory and it gets blasted, then please first investigate the theory I have used to see if I am correct, and if I am not then I will of course admit that. But do the reading first b4 blasting, please.

It may sound better without, if it doesn't, 10 mins to put back in. I really don't see the big issue with that one. I still think you've got the wrong end of the stick?

why do you think its misleading people?

The basis for it is this, please investigate if you disagree.

" A choke was used in early single ended amplifiers, say 1930s, as the capacitors available were small, also the rectifier limited the size of capacitor useable.

Single ended configurations are susceptible to power supply variation, and as such, the choke was used to give extra filtering and smoothing. You can liken it to speaker crossovers a little. 1st order treble...cap only, 2nd order cap and choke, just to visualise.

Capacitors are now available in much larger values, pp topologies cancel artefacts like 2nd harmonic distortion have greater rejection of power supply variations.

As such, I believe it MAY be better to use large resevoir capacitors, with a resistor instead of choke. This will still give the required ripple spec. Use the same dc resistor as the choke measures, calculate the total current drawn by the amplifer approx, dc bias current multiplied by no. of output tubes, and work out the power for the resistor, it will be hi wattage. its equal to total bias squared x resitor value.

I could quote figures for accepted rippling in both configurations but I won't, as I can't recall them, but its quite easy to find"

all my words, if you are concerned, please do some investigation into the basis of those statements, and tell me precisely why its misleading, it would be much appreciated.



honestly, I accept your apology, but I can't say anything wihtout a minority people jumping on it because of preconceptions in the past.

If you are concerned/worried about something I said, why not use the pm system, its the first I have heard about it, surely that's what its for, I can't understand why I don't hear about this sort of thing?

but do think about it b4 quickfiring, as it may still be the wrong end of the stick. but its better to get them out in the open.

[scifipaul]

At Last, I can post a reply.
Hello Chaps. I have puchased and built the super tweeter kit, I'm listening to them now and I'm very happy with the result, here's the story;

I had read the article in Hi-Fi World and was very intreagued at the possibilities of a super tweeter in my system as I felt my speakers were missing something. I was considering Sonus Fabers looking for a bit more life than my Monitor Audio GR20s were showing.
My friend has Veritas folded horns and it is incredible how much information can come from a single, full range driver. That was my goal, that kind of clarity.
I auditioned some Monitor Audio PL100s against Focal Electra 1007 BEs and detected a 'family' sound to the Monitor Audios where the very top end seemed a little clouded. The Focals were better in top end clarity and airiness.
So, not wanting to splash out £3k for Focals & stands if there was another way, I ordered the super tweeter kit.
The package, when it arrived, was impressive, all neat brown paper and Christmas present folding, it promised great things to come.
Assembly was very straight forward with good photos to follow in order to get the components arranged correctly on the back of the connector panel.
I wired them into the GR20s with short lengths of Chord Silver Screen speaker cable that I bought at the Bristol show (on offer) and started playing music.
It has taken a while for things to run in, both the tweeters and the cable, but now I have settled on the middle dB setting and the upper Hz setting.
That means no increase in the output and the crossover lowered by 3kHz.
I now have the top end clarity of the Focals that I had previously auditioned, the performance of the GR20s is closing in on the Veritas horns. If I disconnect the tweeters the speakers sound very dull.
I guess that I must be careful not to have set them too forward giving myself a hole in the midrange but, at the moment, I am very happy with the performance of my system.
The rest of the setup is;
Musical Fildelity A5 pre and power
Musical Fidelity kW DM 25 transport & DAC
Ariston RD40 turntable with RB300 arm and Ortofon Salsa cartridge
Chord Chorus inerconnects throughout
Chord Rumour4 speaker doubled up and bi-wired.
There is a Technics SL1210 mk2 on it's way so I can try DD vs rubber bands.

In short, I can thoroughly recommend the tweeter kit - it's a jem !