Yes, and you use the bathtub to wash your vinyl, you have gone to audiophile heaven, and you did not even have to die !about 14sqm for hardware, LPs and tape
Yes, and you use the bathtub to wash your vinyl, you have gone to audiophile heaven, and you did not even have to die !about 14sqm for hardware, LPs and tape
There’s probably a range of things around trends factoring in as well… maybe the modern speaker trend to designing less efficient speakers with more drivers and more complex crossovers is less obviously problematic when rendering more electronic/electric based music… or just that those design factors could be more obvious when playing unamplified acoustic music… and though high efficiency and simpler crossovers isn’t exclusively a product of time but it does feed into when the prevalence of earlier less complex designs with a base of different materials technology then later moving towards increasingly complex and lower sensitivity designs integrating more synthetic and composite materials and designs working at pushing the boundaries out on new synthetic technologies and the gear working more often into frequency range extremes. The determination to add super tweeters and subs so that systems are more compelling or more obvious candidates for playing across more genres and more adept at being able to play both acoustic and electronic based music becomes more of a need.I'm listening to about as much electronic music as acoustic based music (classical ranging from chamber music to symphonic) and find that with a vintage based design combined with a few different (super) tweeters the whole breadth is covered.
What's important for electrnic is equally important for acoustic music IMHO, yet the snap of a tweeter vs the finest detail make a difference in presentation. When pushed I probably could live with the tweeter of choice for acoustic music.
I was telling in general way,then some exceptions there areI agree with the conclusion, but based on my limited experience I would say that some vintage speakers offer more resolution than modern speakers and sound more dynamic (which is not the same as simply playing loud). Modern speakers have wider and flatter frequency response.
In Trentemøller you probably get the bare essentials down to 70hz, but what's fun is far below that. Then it becomes difficult with small power amplifiers, e.g. set amp. If you have an open baffle, it is better to activate the bass with a separate amplifier because it is control over the driver that is important, not the beauty of the sound. Amplifiers with a lot of power and not too high a damping factor are good. they don't make the bass sound too dry (unnatural the right word maybe) This creates a nice mix with a tube amplifier. And use the best side of set or tube amplifiers to enjoy the beautiful mids and highs without restricting the amplifier with high currents in the bass. sounds much better in my opinion.Could be, yet I tend to think that NO filters and wide range high efficiency speakers work best for electronic music too.
I've listened to f.e. Trentemoller live a few times, and at home. What I think is good electronic music is layered like classical music. ELectronic music frequency boundaries do not necessarily extend those for classical, I even think that electronic music does not extend to the low end since many bands are used to the limits of current speaker designs. (peak low end energy usually sits arounnf 70-80Hz).
My Trionor design delivers electronic music with authority and unravels the layering, heck my current 'get by for the moment' 8" Philips wideband units from the fifities do great unraveling the layering and details and perform as if they are backed by some seriously larger woofers.
Filtering messes up phase coherence as speaker enclosures do, IMHO its less is more and all that. Phase coherence and time alignment are required to recreate things in osund that belong together, like overtones happen at certain wavelentghs above and below the ground tone ripping those loose from their source makes for a tough job putting them back in the place where they belong.
IMO it's a.o. that what makes modern speakers compare poorly with real music
I rather play reverse judo with the frequency response curves of speaker units, making use of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses rather than manhandling difficulties into a straight jacket using higher order filters, that sort of idea ;-)
Creating ONE decent filter combo of a high pass and a low pass filter for a filtered two way can be difficult enough, adding another filter increases the difficulty of maintaining phase coherence to x^2, a four way to x^3 etc.
Too many speakers use filters that have been calculated for flat freq response (which is something the human brain will compensate for rapidly), and likely most experimentation was done adding dB/Octave, hence complexity and less phase coherence..
most modern speakers makes me suffer
Well, yours are technically "modern". I think what I find to be quite good sounding are modern speakers based loosely on old principles. Those that take what was great the old designs and tries to build on those strengths rather than throw out much of that valuable knowledge for the sake of WAF and space savings. it is clear that when powerful amps became affordable that people embraced smaller less efficient speakers that were more domestic friendly. The buying public was sold by the industry that it was better when in fact it was mostly just more convenient.most modern speakers makes me suffer
TAD and JBL are not modern drivers.Well, yours are technically "modern". I think what I find to be quite good sounding are modern speakers based loosely on old principles. Those that take what was great the old designs and tries to build on those strengths rather than throw out much of that valuable knowledge for the sake of WAF and space savings.
However, there is a kind of reversal of this decades long trend as more and more modern high sensitivity designs are becoming available, as well as a plethora of pro drivers to choose from in making a good DIY high sensitivity system...if you have the knowledge to do so. One no longer has to have old Altec, JBL or WE to get a very lifelike performance and often with less of the coloration that plague a lot of vintage systems (horn resonances, cabinets, poor crossover parts etc.).
There are some large conventional speakers, like the Sigma MAAT speaker lineup, that combine more traditional design with high sensitivity and work well with the electronics which can bring the best sound potential. Likewise, brands like Aries Cerat, Odeon, Horning and others are using a mix of horn and high sensitivity conventional drivers to get very easy to drive and highly dynamic speakers without strong colorations. My Hornings are driven easily with a very nice 2A3 amp that I have currently, for example.
TAD and JBL are not modern drivers.
Are you talking about the drivers or implementation. The basic 15" 2 way goes back to the Iconic. To say that drivers have not been modernized is simply not true.
Rob
Gear that is best at phenomenal synthetic music may also not always be equally good at rendering more intimate scales of more acoustic based music. Chasing bandwidth might bring its own challenges… certainly the audio gear measurements war brought with it plenty of casualties along the way. Maybe experiencing more synthetic sounds has changed our expectations about what sound should be sensationally.
Hello bonzo75There is a massive difference between modernized and modern. TAD 4003 is not a modern production by today's standards, it is by WE standards.
Brad's initial paras were just a segue to discount some great stuff to plug in his agenda.