Audio advice and discussions with audiophiles and professionals. Free discussion forums, open to all and frequented by industry experts. Ask questions and get advice on stereos, speakers, hi-end amplifiers, pre-amps, home theater, tube hi-fi, turntables, vinyl, tweaks, music, films, video, DVDs and more.
So some of you guys, led by Replay are going back to solid waste amps? Fuhgeddaboudit! http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/bottlehead/messages/49173.html
I'm just behind you; My Paramour kits are on the way. Right now, I'm working on a 1940 RCA Victor radio I picked up at an estate sale a couple of days ago. Usual treatment, I'll replace all the tubes, capacitors and rewire with original-style cloth insulated wire. I'll strip the finish and sand to bare wood, then apply Minwax polyurethane. Wash the chassis with soap and water, and hit it with a clear coat of paint. Polish the metal dial escutcheon and repair any minor tears in the speaker cone. 1940 RCA Victor Radio, during restoration Sometimes the rear panel which serves as support for the loop antenna is in good shape, other times not. This time, it's in shreads, so I went to home depot and bought a panel of perforated fiberboard and had it cut to backpanel size. That will now become my new back, and I'll glue the loop to it. The glass dial also has been cracked, so I've run a bead of glass glue to repair it good as new. Hopefully I won't have to wind the field coil like I did on my '39 Stewart Warner radio. I'll rewire the chassis this weekend, and I'll check it while I'm waiting for the tubes to arrive. I've put up a little web page that shows my old tube radios. It's kinda fun! Check it out! Just killin' time waiting for my Paramour kits.
Hi Wayne, Like you, I'm also waiting for my Paramours :-). Just curious. What Pi speakers will you pair it with? Edwin
Tangential digression, flame shield engaged.
Nah, never went away from them! Actually, my personal crusade is for active crossovers; how we put up with the degradation the passive units give us when we chase all kinds of other marginal improvements is beyond me, especially when such a good solution exists. That the active unit is demonstrably superior is not a question, the question is, why don't more guys go after it? I have read repeatedly that the crossover introduces more problems than anything else in the chain, and always represents a set of compromises. Why endure it? Sure, I've heard great music from speakers using passives, but I believe, as do some others, that the benefit of the active crossover is one of the more dramatic, quick improvements you can make. I also prefer the superior motor control of the SS units, as well as the headroom. Give me motor control or give me Bose! Anyway, how's that for a tangent? I really think more people should be going this way. There is a reason pro audio went this way long ago, and it wasn't just power handling issues. The more you look at it, the more you think you oughta deal with dividing the bandwidth BEFORE the amps, not after. Nothing else makes as much sense. And given the level of hobby activity ($) many of us have invested, an extra amp and crossover ain't much. I post this on this forum because I tend to think that rationality and non-knee-jerk reactions are more the norm here. Plus no Romy. I also bristled at an audio asylum member's comment awhile ago about "op-amps" and how some "golden ears" (he wouldn't assert that they were HIS ears) said they did terrible things to sound. Talk about your unsubstantiated, non-scientific crap. I asked him who these golden ears were, but of course got no response. So my motto is "DOWN WITH PASSIVE, GO ACTIVE, YOUNG MAN"!
Well, you gone and done it this time. There's going to be Cat postings all over the place in no time. There is a lot to be said for a simple two way system with a passive xo that you just plug in, and it sounds great. Having said that, I love my new Ashley active xo and might even get another so I can have stereo 5 way! lots of nice features and very clean sounding. Now if you want to really disburse a few dead presidents. Why not go for one of the hi-end Speaker contollers. Very slick hardware. Not your average active you see. ßmar
I'll probably try several. But I think for starters I'll go with either two π's or four π's.
Active/multi-amped is great for those that have the hardware. But for those that don't, I like to have an optimized passive solution available. Most people still use a single power amp or receiver.
I made the comment a while back to the effect that many, if not most of the proponents of "analog" over "digital" had never, or seldom heard a vinyl record. At one time St. Harry, followed closely by the rest of the sycophantic press decreed that CD's were overly bright and a whole folklore arose as to the superiority of vinyl until it became the conventional wisdom. So much so that the manufacturer's scurried around and spent the last ten years making CD players with filters that rounded off the digital details and lost a lot of the sound. If vinyl means euphonic and lacking detail (which it doesn't) then I don't want it. Audio catholicism (small "c") is represented by the brethren of our lady of I haven't heard it but it doesn't matter. I don't know. I know I love to listen to my honky icehouse PA horns with a Circuit City mass market SACD player. But then.............. WTFDIK?
Ashley, BSS, Tannoy, Sony, Klark Teknic, Lap Gruppen, Rane, Bryston, Sabine, RCF, Celestian, and Bose to name a few. Her a two links that should get you into a direction. Check out the BSS http://www.canalhifi.com/cgi-bin/chfcat.cgi?user_action=list&category=PROCESSORS http://www.raperandwayman.com/rw/dept-loudspeaker-control.asp
Re: Apostles, Acolytes and Fellow Travelers
Hey, THAT'S THE SAME PAGE I'M ON!!!
i'm not a passive type of guy anyways. let the audiophiles remain passive. it just adds more compression to the music. cheers, george
I don't understand the 'compression' reference George, but what do you think of this British design for an active fourth order, whatever that means. http://www.wnaudio.com/
Yes, that is the thing, isn't it? You have always qualified your designs as optimizing sound quality and value for the dollar spent; want to spend more? Invest in better drivers. This is your theme that resonates strongly with me as well. You optimize the design to do best what it can and to take the most reasonable tradeoffs, which with good drivers is small tradeoffs and great sound. I have discovered that there are some wierd biases out there. A couple of them are: drivers made for pro sound are sturdy etc. but not good for high fidelity...they just built them like that because durability is the main thing for pro audio...(dolts).....I don't think there is much changing of peoples mind about this unless they are honest about it. They don't like to hear that JBL and a few others are building the best, lowest distortion drivers, and can't get over the "PA" aspect. They don't seem to question why their favorite company doesn't even publish specs. It's because there is no shortcut...... Simpler is better.................... well, uh, not necessarily!!!!! Okay, here's the thing; I don't think there are that many solutions to delivering good audio that are truly the best. My mind doesn't work that way. There are certain parameters that define good audio, and there are only certain answers that deliver it. Although we may not/won't reach it, there is ultimately one answer. I'm a judgemental guy, and I don't apologize for it. I think that is the way to be. Many of the speakers/systems on this and the high eff. forum deliver on this account, but again, like Till said, you get used to what you are listening to and that can become your preference. I keep coming back to the idea of having people listen to systems without knowing/seeing what they are listening to. It would force us to acknowledge what it is about good sound that we like. If you could remove the subject from seeing the source, what would people say they liked? In my experience, everyone that is exposed to the effortless, dynamic, big, easy sound of a great horn system seems to be moved by it. It's not "boy, those speakers sound good". They aren't even thinking that way, they are just enjoying the music. I bought a Marantz receiver (actually two) on Ebay, to send with daughter to college. I was going to send the quasi-4 Pi with them, but opted to send some AR's along, until I see how things go. Didn't relish the frat boys coming in and messin' with them. Figured I'd see how it went this year...........
I'm with you, all the way. The most popular speakers are never the most expensive. So I spend some time optimizing the simpler, lesser expensive options and making them sound good. I'm proud of that. I have some statement products too, and they're the best. But the little two-way designs sound pretty good, especially for the money.
hi till, the brits make good stuff. i'm using an inexpensive rane x-over with a 4th order network (24db per octave slope) and i like the sound. by the way, the compression reference is about the typical hi-end low efficiency loudspeaker which compresses the dynamics. cheers, george ps. is it true the cleveland indians are changing their name to the cleveland brits? something to do with never being able to beat the yankees.