The Audio Equipment Corner

[NW-Bound]

Well, I just came in from the backyard after spending two hours measuring speaker open-air responses by frequency speaking. I would have stayed out longer but I ran out of string. And, NW-B is correct, I have to do something with my free time and I don't think it will be cooking French meals.

One thing I have found to be enjoyable is following dividend stocks. I think that the people who follow dividend stocks really enjoy doing it. I may be wrong about this, but it doesn't seem all that complicated. I imagine, though, that this can be as complicated as one chooses to make it--and that's OK, because I'm sure those people enjoy the process. Small caps, bonds, emerging markets--those seem complicated so I use mutual funds or ETFs.

Darn, it's still light outside, I wish I hadn't run out of string.

Oh, Mr. Redduck! As eccentric as I often think that I am, I occasionally find some who are even more so than myself.

Your methodology of speaker testing with strings surely had not crossed my mind. Still, I pride myself on having an inquisitive mind, and spent some time to look into your approach.

Not being a musician, I looked up the Web and found that a tenor could get as high as a C5, and that's 523.25Hz. Hmm... I did not know the human voice is so modest, although it is said that with overtones, read harmonics to me, our tenor can yell out up to 1.5KHz perhaps.

Then, at the low end a basso profondo can get down to E2, and that's a more impressive 82.41Hz!

As I surmise that you are neither a tenor nor a bass your range would be more limited. I think a duck can get higher than a tenor, but then a duck can only sing the same note over and over.

Moreover, I ponder about the transmission bandwidth of your string. How does that vary with the string tension? The type, material, and quality of the string? How you tie your knots? This is way more complicated than the crossover networks I deal with, whose attributes stay the same from day to day.

I think I will stick with my electronic set up, and endure the trouble of setting up equipment in the back yard and running power cords so that I can make use of the 192 kilosamples/sec and 24-bit digital conversion. And that's far above the CD quality of 44.1 Ksps and 16-bit resolution.

May I suggest that you take up French cooking instead?

And back to the dividend stock investing, I would not go 100% with it, and you did not say you would either. I personally have a lot of cash (25%) at the present time, but then I always do. I need to look to deploy that, but am in no hurry. As for you, even if you just track some indices, having the visibility into the individual stocks and see how the market responds to the economy is educational to me. You see, I am always an DIY, and when I get interested in something, I like to get a bit deeper and to understand why something works (or does not work).

 

[NW-Bound]

PS. Though an engineer, I was never employed in the consumer electronics industry, nor a true audiophile. It is only recently that I got my interest revived since my 20s, and now with more equipment at my disposal, found that a lot of questions nagging in my mind could be settled if I just set out to find the answer myself.

About my frequency sweeping of the speakers driving my neighbors nuts, I was joking. With a PC and software, a sweep way past the human hearing range (certainly way past my own range!) takes but a few seconds. My neighbors may just wonder "What the h***" if they happen to be out watering their plants. Here, backyards are all separated with a 6-ft fence, hence they would not know where that "Whoosh" comes from.

 

[NW-Bound]

PPS. Related to using one's vocal cord as the stimulus for speaker testing, I just recall a major reason I do not like to use headphones.

You see, I often get excited and sing along. Well, I am never that good a singer, and when I lose the aural feedback to my own voice, it goes from bad to horrible. Of course, I did not know how terribly off-note I was, but every time that happened, and I meant every time, my DW said "Cut that out!". She did not say that actually, but something more gently like "Getting too happy there, aren't you" or something like that, but I got the message.

 

[MichaelB]

PPS. Related to using one's vocal cord as the stimulus for speaker testing, I just recall a major reason I do not like to use headphones.

You see, I often get excited and sing along. Well, I am never that good a singer, and when I lose the aural feedback to my own voice, it goes from bad to horrible. Of course, I did not know how terribly off-note I was, but every time that happened, and I meant every time, my DW said "Cut that out!". She did not say that actually, but something more gently like "Getting too happy there, aren't you" or something like that, but I got the message.

When I was a mostly dysfunctional high school teen I made a short lived deal with my folks that allowed us to sit together in the living room after dinner. They watched TV, I listened to music with headphones. One night I noticed they were staring at me, with that "killer x-ray vision" think usually reserved for married couples. Turns out I was singing along, aloud, to Steppenwolf "The Pusher". It didn't end well.

 

[HFWR]

When I was a mostly dysfunctional high school teen I made a short lived deal with my folks that allowed us to sit together in the living room after dinner. They watched TV, I listened to music with headphones. One night I noticed they were staring at me, with that "killer x-ray vision" think usually reserved for married couples. Turns out I was singing along, aloud, to Steppenwolf "The Pusher". It didn't end well.

"But it's an anti-drug song..."

Written by Hoyt Axton, also author of [-]"Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog"[/-] "Joy to the World"...

Obviously wasn't taking his own advice.

 

[MichaelB]

"But it's an anti-drug song..."

While true, the opening lines led mom and dad to believe something different, both about the song and me. The refrain drove them over the edge...

 

[NW-Bound]

Never heard of Steppenwolf "The Pusher". So I found it on youtube and listened to it on my laptop. My wife sitting 15 ft away at her desktop commented "Good grief, what kind of music is that?".

You must understand that we both are the type who often watched Lawrence Welk in our 20s.

 

[34rlsa]

When I was a mostly dysfunctional high school teen I made a short lived deal with my folks that allowed us to sit together in the living room after dinner. They watched TV, I listened to music with headphones. One night I noticed they were staring at me, with that "killer x-ray vision" think usually reserved for married couples. Turns out I was singing along, aloud, to Steppenwolf "The Pusher". It didn't end well.

Lord Knows


great story... thanks for posting.

 

[ERD50]

Audio topics have spilled into some other threads, and started to take on a life of their own. So here's a place specific for our audio discussions, in the same vein as The Photographer's Corner.

Speakers, source devices, amps & pre-amps, portable audio, headphones, computer audio, anything along those lines should fit in well here.

A couple current discussions center around planar speakers, rebuilding some classic speakers, classic amps & receivers. Bringing 'records' and cassettes into the digital age has been discussed from time to time.

Of course, if you think a topic is specific enough for its own thread, that's fine too (not that I have anything to say about it! ).

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

A fine idea to start this thread. I will move the other posts over here momentarily.

Edit to add: As you can see, they are above, because they are earlier in time.

 

[ejman]

Tubes! I've been listening to my new tube power amp for about a month now and I find that my expensive solid state Conrad Johnson amp is getting less and less use. So the question that keeps bouncing around my noggin is how is it that an obsolete technology that measures much worse than current technology sounds better?

Come to think of it, with all the engineers at this ER site this might be a really wormy subject.

 

[robnplunder]

Gee, it must be 10 years ago. I've updated my music system to McCormack DNA1.0 amp & preamp, California CD player, and Vandersteen 5a speakers. They sound great then and still do now. And the way they are built, I think they can last 20 more years (except for the CD player with its moving parts). I often wonder if audio tech improved so much in the last 10 years that I should be thinking about another upgrade. Then, again, my ears will start to fail due to aging ....

 

[robnplunder]

Tubes! I've been listening to my new tube power amp for about a month now and I find that my expensive solid state Conrad Johnson amp is getting less and less use. So the question that keeps bouncing around my noggin is how is it that an obsolete technology that measures much worse than current technology sounds better?

It's all between your ears!

 

[Nodak]

"But it's an anti-drug song..."

Written by Hoyt Axton, also author of [-]"Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog"[/-] "Joy to the World"...

Obviously wasn't taking his own advice.

in 1968 I was in San Francisco and had gone to the Fillmore. Steppenwolf was playing "The Pusher" and I was sitting listening when this guy sat down next to me. he asked what I thought of the song and I said I liked it a lot. Then he introduced himself - it was Hoyt Axton.

 

[ejman]

I think Axton's LP "Fearless" is wonderful one of my favorites in that style.

 

[ejman]

Gee, it must be 10 years ago. I've updated my music system to McCormack DNA1.0 amp & preamp, California CD player, and Vandersteen 5a speakers. They sound great then and still do now. And the way they are built, I think they can last 20 more years (except for the CD player with its moving parts). I often wonder if audio tech improved so much in the last 10 years that I should be thinking about another upgrade. Then, again, my ears will start to fail due to aging ....

That is a very fine system. The Vandersteens are great and the McCormack amps have a great reputation and since Conrad Johnson bought McCormak I've seen the same type of technology of distributed capacitors brought into the newest CJ SS amp. The older SS technology included massive power supply capacitors such as my CJ MF 2300A. I seriously doubt that any current equipment would significantly better what you have.

 

[Nodak]

Here's my vintage stereo system. The pre-amp is newer but speakers and amp I purchased in 1972

 

[ERD50]

in 1968 I was in San Francisco and had gone to the Fillmore. Steppenwolf was playing "The Pusher" and I was sitting listening when this guy sat down next to me. he asked what I thought of the song and I said I liked it a lot. Then he introduced himself - it was Hoyt Axton.

And Hoyt Axton's mother co-wrote "Heartbreak Hotel", a great tune IMO.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Tubes! I've been listening to my new tube power amp for about a month now and I find that my expensive solid state Conrad Johnson amp is getting less and less use. So the question that keeps bouncing around my noggin is how is it that an obsolete technology that measures much worse than current technology sounds better?

Come to think of it, with all the engineers at this ER site this might be a really wormy subject.

I've never really owned any high-end tube equipment (just turned out that way, I didn't necessarily avoid it), but here's my take on it from what I do know.

For me, "obsolete" is a tricky word. Tubes amplify, and they still do that, so they are not "obsolete" in that sense. Transistor amplifiers (and now the switching amplifiers) have many advantages in size, cost weight, consistency, etc. None of those really have much to do with how they sound.

Measurements can tell us a lot, but the question is, are we measuring the right things? The whole psycho-acoustic area is exceedingly complex and non-obvious. Tubes generally have certain characteristics, and some of these characteristics result in poorer measurements in some areas. But those characteristics (or others) may sound good to you. If they do, enjoy!

Similar to the debate over LP vinyl versus CD or other digital audio. In many ways, an LP measures way worse. But there are some attributes that some people like. I'm certainly not going to argue with them about which they prefer, and they don't need to justify it. If you like LPs listen to LPs!

But I won't accept factually wrong info either - LPs have wow-flutter, the signal is run through all sorts of phase-shifting effects between the RIAA filters and the cartridge reactive elements. A friend of mine would always complain about how active circuits had phase-shift, but seemed to think cross-overs in speakers were somehow different, because there was no op-amp in there. I never got that.

Tubes in a guitar amp are a whole 'nother thing. Tubes distort differently, and most who love the sound of a screaming guitar would agree that tubes sound 'better'.

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

in 1968 I was in San Francisco and had gone to the Fillmore. Steppenwolf was playing "The Pusher" and I was sitting listening when this guy sat down next to me. he asked what I thought of the song and I said I liked it a lot. Then he introduced himself - it was Hoyt Axton.

That is seriously cool. . Thanks for sharing it.

So is a thread on audio topics.

 

[ejman]

I've never really owned any high-end tube equipment (just turned out that way, I didn't necessarily avoid it), but here's my take on it from what I do know.

For me, "obsolete" is a tricky word. Tubes amplify, and they still do that, so they are not "obsolete" in that sense. Transistor amplifiers (and now the switching amplifiers) have many advantages in size, cost weight, consistency, etc. None of those really have much to do with how they sound.

Measurements can tell us a lot, but the question is, are we measuring the right things? The whole psycho-acoustic area is exceedingly complex and non-obvious. Tubes generally have certain characteristics, and some of these characteristics result in poorer measurements in some areas. But those characteristics (or others) may sound good to you. If they do, enjoy!

Similar to the debate over LP vinyl versus CD or other digital audio. In many ways, an LP measures way worse. But there are some attributes that some people like. I'm certainly not going to argue with them about which they prefer, and they don't need to justify it. If you like LPs listen to LPs!

But I won't accept factually wrong info either - LPs have wow-flutter, the signal is run through all sorts of phase-shifting effects between the RIAA filters and the cartridge reactive elements. A friend of mine would always complain about how active circuits had phase-shift, but seemed to think cross-overs in speakers were somehow different, because there was no op-amp in there. I never got that.

Tubes in a guitar amp are a whole 'nother thing. Tubes distort differently, and most who love the sound of a screaming guitar would agree that tubes sound 'better'.

-ERD50

By and large I agree with your post but it does seem strange that generally accepted desirable technical parameters such as low harmonic and intermodulation distortion seem to get a pass with a lot of tube amps that have distortion in the order of 10 times or more that of SS equipment. Come to think of it the same applies to LP's vs CD's as you pointed out.

Yet when I listen to my tube amp vs the SS, I hear a larger deeper soundstage (performers are more "present" as solid beings on the soundstage) but I don't actually hear a distorted sound. Maybe my hearing is just not good enough to detect that level of distortion.

 

[steelyman]

I'm not an audiophile. I have Peavey and Roland amps and enjoy playing with people in the room. The iPod takes care of the rest.

 

[ERD50]

Your methodology of speaker testing with strings surely had not crossed my mind.

Actually, strings can be used very effectively to fine tune your speaker/room interactions. And you don't even need the speakers to be active!

I forget the details, and a quick search didn't bring it up, but the approach is to fix a string at the speaker source, and then pull it taught between that point and the point your ears would be at when listening. Then you add a specific number of inches to the string (I'd have to look it up), and fix it at your ear position (it will now be loose). Now pull the string tight into a triangle and see if you can touch any wall or floor at any point with the string. Any point you can touch indicates a point that will reflect and smear the sound. I need to do some work on my listening room to reduce some of these early reflections, but have not found a solution with reasonable SAP (spousal approval factor).

I'll also need to search, there is a very interesting test tone track I've used, I think it was from a Stereophile test CD. Most of those test tracks are pretty straightforward, frequency sweeps, IM, etc. This was very different. IIRC, it was a short repeating blip of a tone, maybe 7 times - like someone very quickly repeating the same key on an organ/synth, and then it would rise in freq and repeat that freq 7 times. The odd thing was, you would hear the 7 tones distinctly, and it would all be very boring, until you hit certain frequencies, and then they suddenly, and very obviously, all jumbled together. The first time I did it, I thought for sure the CD was recorded that way, or skipping or something - but they were all distinct when I used headphones. So it really made me think about how much the room can mess with the sound, and not just broad frequency peaks/troughs.

Not being a musician, I looked up the Web and found that a tenor could get as high as a C5, and that's 523.25Hz. Hmm... I did not know the human voice is so modest, although it is said that with overtones, read harmonics to me, our tenor can yell out up to 1.5KHz perhaps.

But the harmonics/overtones go so much higher. And singing voices make all sorts of 'noise', from the sibilants (CHecK! - CHecK! - CHecK! - tesssssst! - tessssst! - tesssst!) to air rushing sounds, probably beyond our hearing range.

When I was a mostly dysfunctional high school teen I made a short lived deal with my folks that allowed us to sit together in the living room after dinner. They watched TV, I listened to music with headphones. One night I noticed they were staring at me, with that "killer x-ray vision" think usually reserved for married couples. Turns out I was singing along, aloud, to Steppenwolf "The Pusher". It didn't end well.

Hah! Had a very similar experience, and I was going to give the same answer others did - it's an anti-drug song! Our garage band would play that one, great tune. Now I feel sorry for NW-B if that wasn't a part of his youth, and he cannot appreciate it now. Some great 'psychedelic' guitar work on that song (and I never could figure out how a guitar could 'sound' psychedelic?).

Could'a been worse - it could have been the F-I-S-H cheer from the Woodstock album!

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

By and large I agree with your post but it does seem strange that generally accepted desirable technical parameters such as low harmonic and intermodulation distortion seem to get a pass with a lot of tube amps that have distortion in the order of 10 times or more that of SS equipment. Come to think of it the same applies to LP's vs CD's as you pointed out.

Yet when I listen to my tube amp vs the SS, I hear a larger deeper soundstage (performers are more "present" as solid beings on the soundstage) but I don't actually hear a distorted sound. Maybe my hearing is just not good enough to detect that level of distortion.

It seems strange, but when you understand a bit more about music and sound, it makes more sense.

Like many things, being ten times better in one area might not be significant, if the thing being measured does not sound 'bad' to us at 10x.

(I think I mentioned this in one of the other threads) The relatively high distortion in tubes is "harmonic distortion", and is weighted to even harmonics. That type of distortion tends to blend in with the harmonics already present in the music. And it can, subjectively, make the music sound 'better' - a little fuller. Some will argue that it is not 'accurate', but who are we kidding - unless it is live, acoustic music, it isn't 'accurate' anyhow, it's all an illusion. If someone prefers their illusion with a little more second harmonic, who is in any position to tell them they are wrong?

A 'warm' tube sound (maybe from a little high end roll off, or that 'warm' even-order distortion) might sound better than a solid-state amp with speakers or a room that is too 'bright'. So maybe the room or cross-over should be worked on, rather than say one amp is 'better' than the other - but if you getthe results you like, does it matter?

Well, I should go finish up what is hopefully the last of my cassettes to digitize, my current audio project (then clean up the recordings, edit and such). A few of these are recordings broadcast over FM radio of local concerts I attended, so they have some nostalgic value. A few are tapes I made with a Fostex 4-track cassette, and a small MIDI studio back in the 1980's.

-ERD50

 

[eytonxav]

Here's my vintage stereo system. The pre-amp is newer but speakers and amp I purchased in 1972

Nice! McIntosh was really the cadillac of amps and pre-amps back in the day. My budget back then could only support dynakits.