My monitor/subwoofer system

From Peter's system thread:



ddk's reply:



(I moved my answer here in order not to derail the other thread.)

Thank you for the encouragement, David. While I might enjoy them on a good amount of musical material, I doubt though that vintage speakers would satisfy me on all music.

A great strength in performance with my current speakers is on string quartets, to name just one example. On much of string quartet playing and recordings, the micro-detail of texture is more subtle than on solo violin.

My previous speakers, Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors, were rather quite good on solo violin. Yet compared to my current speakers, the Reflector monitors from the same brand, their performance on the subtle timbral micro-detail, including bowing transients, of string quartets was much weaker and thus less believable. While of course string quartets on my current speakers still do not sound like live, the believability is on a level that is quite stunning to me and something that until a few years ago I did not think was possible with home stereo reproduction. The chasm between this and the comparatively flat sonic, and expressive, performance on this music on my previous monitors is quite brutal and not funny (the Reflector are also yet considerably better on solo violin).

The drivers are almost the same between the two monitors, even though they are more hand selected on the Reflector. The main difference is the inertness of cabinet, which was already quite high in the MM DeCapo BE, but on yet a whole other level in the Reflector. The inertness of cabinet eliminates resonances that blur resolution of fine detail. (Interestingly, rather than deadening the sound, the inert cabinet enhances dynamics and liveliness, apparently because cabinet resonances do not counteract and diffuse the energy coming from the drivers.)

Vintage speakers would have more cabinet resonances, and especially ones with larger cabinets, which are intrinsically harder to not to make resonate too much.

So it is highly unlikely that I would be able to get anything like the remarkably realistic performance on string quartet, which I so much enjoy from my current monitors, from larger vintage speakers, at least from conventional cone speakers. But that kind of performance, faithful to subtle timbral micro-detail, is for me personally also an integral part of natural sound.

Nothing against your current speakers or setup just mentioned it because you brought up the subject and issue of cost. I don't know from where the idea comes that you're limited to certain types of music with vintage speakers it's not true. As far as cabinet resonance goes the better ones were designed with that in mind, it's part of how they energize the room. People kill the speaker when they stiffen up those cabinets or remove the drivers and stick them in inert boxes that they weren't designed for. Modern drivers are a different story.

david
 
The ability of some vintage speakers is extraordinary in the frequency range up to 18,000 hz. They do the meat and fresh range so good your string quartet could be almost like physically right there in front of you. It is a different sound that doesn't put a microscope on like you described your system, but it really has its magic.
Dear Tang, can you give an example of such a vintage speaker?
 
The ability of some vintage speakers is extraordinary in the frequency range up to 18,000 hz. .

Tad is now vintage, and while the drivers can go over 20 the tweeter is linear at close to 110db till 40 kHz.
 
Nothing against your current speakers or setup just mentioned it because you brought up the subject and issue of cost. I don't know from where the idea comes that you're limited to certain types of music with vintage speakers it's not true.

Of course most speakers can play any kind of music, I agree, and I am sure there are plenty of vintage speakers that are competent on all music. The question only becomes just how well a speaker can play any given type of music. My old Reference 3A monitors, and the Ensemble Reference monitors before that, could perfectly well play string quartets, better than many other speakers, in my opinion (the latter monitors were from 1990, so somewhat closer to vintage; I had them in my system until 2016). It is just that my current Reference Reflector speakers offer a superior level of performance on this (and other) music that I would not want to live without anymore.

That is the only thing that I implied when I said: "While I might enjoy them on a good amount of musical material, I doubt though that vintage speakers would satisfy me on all music."

As far as cabinet resonance goes the better ones were designed with that in mind, it's part of how they energize the room. People kill the speaker when they stiffen up those cabinets or remove the drivers and stick them in inert boxes that they weren't designed for. Modern drivers are a different story.

david

That is a very interesting subject. As far as I know, some speaker manufacturers even said -- and maybe some still do today -- that they view their speakers more as musical instruments, in resonance with the music. It is a different design philosophy.
 
The usual suspects from JBL, Tannoy, Klipsch, Altec less common ones from Siemens (not even talking about the main Klangfilm models that blow everything else away), Technics and TAD just for starters.
david
Thanks David
Can you please also name the respective models to the brands you mentioned?
 
Dear Tang, can you give an example of such a vintage speaker?
I by chance went into a room of one of my tonearm guy's client. He had this JBL Paragon played with, if my memory serve me right, a pair of very old Marantz tube amps. The speaker was elevated from the floor about a foot standing on the long wooden table. It was playing violin/cello/piano. I was in there for only a few minutes. But the sound was in my head til today. However I heard the Paragon in a hi-end dealer another time it sounded like crap.

Apology to Al M for intruding your thread.
 
Apology to Al M for intruding your thread.

Thanks,Tango, but I guess I intruded my thread myself by getting into this kind of discussion. It's interesting, just everyone carry on, for now at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph
Thanks David
Can you please also name the respective models to the brands you mentioned?
Any Everest or K2 JBL up to the M9500 and some of their derivatives, 43xx series and domestic versions like L300 & Sovereigns.
Most Tannoys with 15" Monitor Red or Gold drivers with the GRFs & Autographs as the top cabinets.
Altec VOTTs, many versions both commercial and domestic designs are good
Klipschorn K Horns
Siemens made a line of theater speakers in Austria which where very compact but I don't remember the models now.
Technics made some great horn speakers in the 70's SB-1000 and SB-10000, there were other interesting models too but I never owned them. In the 60's they made some 2 & 3 way studio monitors for NHK under the Diatone brand, the early ones have amazing purity and beauty. I like all 80's TADs.

david
 
  • Like
Reactions: tima and christoph
That is a very interesting subject. As far as I know, some speaker manufacturers even said -- and maybe some still do today -- that they view their speakers more as musical instruments, in resonance with the music. It is a different design philosophy.
A lot of audio manufacturers call their equipment musical instruments as do owners and reviewers in context of equipment they like but that doesn't mean anything special. It was a different time with knowledge and art that sadly disappeared with those engineers. Making inert stiff cabinets was never a big deal back then it was just a different approach and ideal.

david
 
  • Like
Reactions: assessor43
Any Everest or K2 JBL up to the M9500 and some of their derivatives, 43xx series and domestic versions like L300 & Sovereigns.
Most Tannoys with 15" Monitor Red or Gold drivers with the GRFs & Autographs as the top cabinets.
Altec VOTTs, many versions both commercial and domestic designs are good
Klipschorn K Horns
Siemens made a line of theater speakers in Austria which where very compact but I don't remember the models now.
Technics made some great horn speakers in the 70's SB-1000 and SB-10000, there were other interesting models too but I never owned them. In the 60's they made some 2 & 3 way studio monitors for NHK under the Diatone brand, the early ones have amazing purity and beauty. I like all 80's TADs.

david

https://www.ebay.com/itm/MITSUBISHI...299304?hash=item234a5a7be8:g:m8cAAOxyx-BSbHL1
https://www.ebay.com/itm/JBL-L300-S...499196?hash=item264a9c10fc:g:4AcAAOSwWNBffHZ2
https://www.ebay.com/itm/JBL-4333A-Speakers-USA/133527639385?hash=item1f16de1559:g:S7MAAOSwkplfa4Lb
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-JBL-C...574486?hash=item23cedef896:g:CQkAAOSwO5VeHAkW
https://www.ebay.com/itm/JBL-Sovere...535320?hash=item48f014b958:g:2BcAAOSwdD5exc4s
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Pair-Of-JBL-4343/184395808617?hash=item2aeed8bf69:g:2A4AAOSw3WhfMJoG
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Altec-Lans...030044?hash=item4b844a9edc:g:h2wAAOSwc7VfjzhH


I didn't check for K horns beacuse I think they kinda suck.

None are cheap, but certainly vastly more pocket book friendly than so much of the high end stuff out there. I really wish there was a cheap option that was DDK approved, to get newbies hooked.
 
Telefunken TLX1, TLX2 and if you can find them TLX3, they don't need higher end tube electronics like most of the above to sound good but like everything vintage some knowledge is needed not to end up with a POS.

david
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph
Telefunken TLX1, TLX2 and if you can find them TLX3, they don't need higher end tube electronics like most of the above to sound good but like everything vintage some knowledge is needed not to end up with a POS.

david

All I see is some odd little bookshelves searching for those.

I don't think you can escape the fact that bit of knowledge is needed to do well.
 
My monitor/subwoofer system is going down an interesting path.

Hehe, you can say that. I do find it entertaining, but also informative. There's obviously a whole other audio culture out there.

Not that I plan to sell my own speakers, I'm just too happy with them. The 'atmosphere' path that we both seem to go down is appealing.
 
Apart from improvements of sound, over the years I have worked towards less and less distortion from my system. In the summer I had reconfigured the system from having the subwoofers at the front wall,

Update July 19, 2020

to putting the subwoofers next to the speakers (pictures at bottom of post):

Update Aug 19, 2020

This did not just deliver gains in bass performance, but also unexpected large gains in system sound independent of bass performance, apparently due to critical changes in acoustics. For this, see the description two posts down from the above link. The distortion significantly decreased further, and with it, fine resolution increased, especially in loud passages.

Something like the reproduction of Beethoven string quartets with the Quartetto Italiano (recordings featured recently in Peter A.'s system videos) had already been rather unproblematic before, but after the change it was even better. Yet now I also had been able to enjoy music like the string quartet Orange by Caroline Shaw reproduced effortlessly, with great purity of sound:

Attacca Quartet - Orange.png

That even though I listen, like with most other music, to string quartets rather loudly. This of course puts greater stress on system performance, and more readily reveals potentially adverse speaker/room interactions, than listening at more moderate volume levels will do (and especially reproduction of string quartets will most easily reveal distortion). Peaks on this quartet are at 90 dBa in my system (ca. 95 dB); in general on string quartets peak levels are between 87 and 90 dBa, depending on recording (if the perspective of recorded sound is clearly distant, volume is less than that). Sitting up close to performers in a small venue I have heard string quartets sound live at an even louder level, but that is an exception. For comparison, sitting a few rows away from the stage in a somewhat larger venue (not a large symphonic hall, but still a hall rather than a large living room, for example), the sound volume from string quartet can drop down to peak levels of 70 - 75 dBa (about 75 - 80 dB), or even lower. So I do like my string quartet sound up close, with a matching volume level, and most string quartet recordings seem to be made from a relatively close perspective anyway. Whereas with orchestral music it usually throws a rather expansive, spacious soundstage, my monitor based system is able portray string quartets and other kinds of small-scale music with great intimacy, something that I cherish.

Yet the less distortion I hear from my system, the more I become aware of what is left of it. While with the new system configuration the above quartet sounded pure with hardly any distortion, the set of Haydn string quartets op. 33 with the Eybler Quartet fared slightly less well:

Haydn_Eybler_op33.png
This excellent American/Canadian ensemble plays on period instruments. Of course, some famous modern string quartet ensembles play on old instruments as well, but there the bridge of the instrument, the strings and the bow are usually different to produce the more modern sound. Period instrument playing uses gut strings rather than metallic or synthetic strings, the bridge of the instrument is more to the period, and the bow tends to be lighter than modern bows (allowing for easier fast playing, but harder to play for drawn-out notes).

Gut strings tend to have rich, radiant overtones, and this can cause HF problems upon reproduction. There were slight distortions here and there, and compared to the string quartet Orange the reproduction showed some strain in a few passages, at least at the high volume level I like to play the recording. Yet there was nothing of concern, and I enjoyed the music, performance and sound very much.

This changed when I tried to listen to the recently acquired Haydn string quartets op 20 with the Quatuor Mosaiques, a now famous Austrian ensemble also playing on period instruments (you may be able to find this on Quobuz):

Haydn, Quatuor Mosaïques - String Quartets Opus 20.png

Here the radiant overtones were just too much. While I loved the music and the performance, the recording was unlistenable except at lower volume (it was particularly bad on the first mvmt. of the quartet op.20/II in C major). There was constant high frequency "beaming" that was just too irritating and fatiguing, and there was audible distortion in loud passages. Being confronted with this problem, and really wanting to enjoy this recording, I decided to try more things with my system setup.
 
Thinking about easy options to potentially lessen distortion, I decided to move the equipment rack further back, towards the front wall and away from the speakers. While a number of experts recommend separating the equipment rack from the speakers, I had hesitated to do so in the past, for two reasons:

1.The imaging changed in an undesired manner, with images moving back when the rack moved back. Yet that was when I still had a higher rack (my current one is the lowest one I could find for a reasonable price and without custom fabrication), the electronics were weaker with presumably less stable imaging, and above all, my acoustics were much inferior and less stable than they are now.

2. If I moved the rack back, it would put the equipment more into the direct firing line of the subwoofers at the front wall. Yet now that the subs were in front next to the speakers, the situation reversed completely. Moving the rack away from the speakers would also move it away from the subs.

The second reason is also why I agreed with Peter A. when, right after we had moved the subs next to the speakers, he suggested that we should move the equipment rack further back; we moved the rack by about 10 inches. Perhaps that move also was responsible for a good part of the improvement of sound that I experienced back then.

So I decided to move the rack back a bit more, as it turned out 5.5 inches. I planned and still plan to do moves in small increments, because I am not yet sure if moving the rack fully towards the front wall will be a good thing. After all, the subwoofers at the front wall in hindsight had messed up the sound, perhaps causing a weird turbulence in the backwave from the main speakers (but then, they were also positioned high on ASC SubTraps).

Voila, considerably less distortion! The sound on that period instrument string quartet right away moved from a "teeth grinding" affair to something more acceptable. Imaging seemed unaffected, as it should be.

Since the equipment on the rack apparently causes disturbing reflections, I thought about how I could lessen reflections further. My eye fell on the gloss paint of the JL Audio subwoofers, which had never been a favorite finish of mine, but strangely the only one available to order (I would have preferred matte). After toying with towel options, eventually I decided to buy rubber mats, also because of the convenient size:

https://www.amazon.com/Neoprene-Sponge-Rubber-Sheet-Rolls/dp/B07BKP6KFX/

The 15 inch width covers the 16 inch depth of the subwoofers nicely, and the 60 inch length allows for wrapping around the sidewalls of the subs as well, as you can see from below before and after images. I still haven't cut to size and taped on the covers yet, debating with myself if I should first put cloth between sub paint and rubber covers as protection, even though the rubber clearly does not appear to be of the sticky variety. Don't worry, the grey color of the covers is an artifact of the camera's flashlight; in reality the covers look much blacker, similar to my speaker stands and almost as black as the subwoofer paint.


DSC01952_cr.jpg

DSC01947_cr.jpg

After putting the covers on, HF distortion is very much down! The effect is even more pronounced than moving the rack back. I could easily and repeatedly check the effect of the rubber covers over the reflective gloss paint of the subwoofers, because as of yet they can be readily removed and put back.

On the aforementioned first mvmt. of the Haydn quartet op.20/II in C major, played on period instruments featuring gut strings (producing intense overtones), the sound image of the first violin is more focused with the covers on, even though the image thankfully is still rather big and not pinpointed. In particular, the high frequencies appear more localized, less of an undefined, spread-out halo, and thus less beaming in an uncontrolled, irritating manner. When other instruments in higher register come in, the energy fields of overtones overlap less with the first violin, and thus the sound becomes less confusing to the ear. This also further reduces the impression of beaming from all the intense overtones and lessens irritation by the sound. Without the covers on it's just "too much", and with the covers on the subs the sound becomes digestible to the ears, and thus much less fatiguing. I am very confident that the described effects are highly reproducible and real, since with going back and forth, back and forth numerous times with covers on/off I learned how to hone in on what to listen for, and I could easily hear it every time, without having to doubt that I might be fooling myself.

With Lee Morgan's trumpet I could also hear a good effect from the subwoofer covers, but I am slightly less confident than with the violin on the Haydn quartet. Still, with rubber covers on, there is just more calm and less nervous irritability in the trumpet sound, especially in the high register, and it makes the instrument sound more real, more engaging and takes away fatigue. It also allows you to listen into the sound more, revealing more timbral detail.

***

Finally, I moved the rack backwards another ca. 5.5 inches (for the reason why I do these moves in such small increments, see above). The effect was less than the first move of 5.5 inches a few days earlier, but still noticeable. There was yet less HF distortion on the Haydn string quartet, and even the softer, drawn out sounds at the beginning of the third movement were different. There was more calm in the sound, with less nervous tension. I checked for reproducibility of the effect by moving the rack back and forth between old and new positions (I felt comfortable doing so even with the tubes in the preamp burning, since the sliding on the wool carpet hardly seemed to cause any vibrations). I also repeatedly checked if there was any movement of images in the soundstage, but everything stayed solid, as it should; upfront remained upfront, sounds further back in the soundstage remained locked in their position. As I mentioned, this would not have necessarily been the case in the past. With this last move the rack is now midway between front wall and speakers (drivers 7 feet from front wall).

Here is the configuration of my current set-up:

DSC01938_cr.jpg
 
Last edited:
In the last post I have described the process of making the recording of Haydn op. 20 string quartets played on period instruments go from sounding unbearable to listenable. The next update in a few days will deal with the transition from listenable to enjoyable.
 
Wow, the rack is really recessed now. I look forward to hearing your system again someday!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al M.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu