|
Post by boomzilla on Sept 28, 2020 12:39:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 13:06:45 GMT -5
Very much enjoyed reading your review, Boom. I also thought your review in emphasizing the component selection "up the chain of command" [power amplifier] might save tons of time and money leading to frustrating lack luster results. The speakers obviously rely on proper amplifiers for fidelity which complements the well greased cogs in the towers. Having a poor selection of upstream components is reminiscent of military life when and where lack of leadership results in a cluster f$%& of troop movements. Looking forward to your next heavy hitting review, Boom! I enjoy high end big gun product reviews even if unobtainable in price point! Enjoy, William
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 28, 2020 13:15:50 GMT -5
Nice review. Strange that a 93db speaker would need so much power to excel. That mid/bass woofer must have very low self compliance.
|
|
|
Post by mshump on Sept 28, 2020 13:49:14 GMT -5
Nice review !
Mark
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Sept 28, 2020 14:20:32 GMT -5
The sensitivity of a woofer appears to be unrelated to the amplifier damping factor and current needed to control it? Perhaps KeithL or DYohn would be so kind as to explain the technical side of the relationship? In any case, that particular speaker thrives on both damping factor and current capability. It may have something to do with the unusual bass loading of the cabinet - I've never seen another speaker with BOTH a transmission line (below the woofer's resonant frequency) AND a port (above the woofer's resonant frequency). I've read that the company demonstrates the speaker at audio shows using the big Krell amplifiers to power the speaker. If high sensitivity alone was the driving factor for amplifier selection, a 2-watt SET tube amp would be fine. But not much about that speaker is "the usual" in any way, shape, or form. If I ever win the lottery (or become a widower), such a speaker might be feasible for me, but even if it is unattainable, I'm happy to have had the acquaintance! Boom PS: Although the Emotiva TA-100 integrated wasn't the ideal match for this speaker, I think that the little BasX jewel is a component that punches FAR above its weight and price class!
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 28, 2020 14:33:06 GMT -5
The sensitivity of a woofer appears to be unrelated to the amplifier damping factor and current needed to control it? Perhaps KeithL or DYohn would be so kind as to explain the technical side of the relationship? In any case, that particular speaker thrives on both damping factor and current capability. It may have something to do with the unusual bass loading of the cabinet - I've never seen another speaker with BOTH a transmission line (below the woofer's resonant frequency) AND a port (above the woofer's resonant frequency). I've read that the company demonstrates the speaker at audio shows using the big Krell amplifiers to power the speaker. If high sensitivity alone was the driving factor for amplifier selection, a 2-watt SET tube amp would be fine. But not much about that speaker is "the usual" in any way, shape, or form. If I ever win the lottery (or become a widower), such a speaker might be feasible for me, but even if it is unattainable, I'm happy to have had the acquaintance! Boom PS: Although the Emotiva TA-100 integrated wasn't the ideal match for this speaker, I think that the little BasX jewel is a component that punches FAR above its weight and price class! Sensitivity and damping factor are unrelated concepts. DF is determined by the net series resistance of the loudspeaker circuit compared to the amplifier output resistance. Loudspeaker sensitivity is its output response determined by the reaction of the voice coil to signal voltage. These concepts are not directly related to each other.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Sept 28, 2020 15:10:37 GMT -5
I think I may have phrased the question poorly, David - Does a highly-sensitive driver require less current for accurate control than a less-sensitive one? Obviously, in terms of raw acoustic output, yes, a high-sensitivity driver requires less wattage to produce the same SPL, but that isn't the same as accurate control of the entire magnet/voice-coil/suspension system.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Sept 28, 2020 15:34:42 GMT -5
Nice review!
When I saw these at AXPONA last year, they did indeed have a Krell driving them, and they sounded glorious! The woofer "sounded" like it went way lower than the stated low frequency. My friend and I just sat there enjoying the experience. One of the noted highlights of the show for us.
I have my eye on these speakers for when I move into the old folks home. I'm sure they will install some 20A circuits for the Krell amps, right?
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 28, 2020 19:55:07 GMT -5
I think I may have phrased the question poorly, David - Does a highly-sensitive driver require less current for accurate control than a less-sensitive one? Obviously, in terms of raw acoustic output, yes, a high-sensitivity driver requires less wattage to produce the same SPL, but that isn't the same as accurate control of the entire magnet/voice-coil/suspension system. Actually "accurate control of the ... system" is not even an issue. Most high sensitivity dynamic drivers have relatively short Xmax (travel) which means more of the VC remains in the flux gap more of the time and that does three things: it decreases the distortion, it increases the accuracy, and it lowers the max output capability. So in general a high efficiency driver is perceived as "more accurate" at normal listening levels because it's VC is experiencing full flux from the magnet more of the time. It has nothing to do with the amplifier's damping factor nor, indeed, with power. It's inherent to the mechanical construction of the driver. They also tend to me more expensive than lower efficiency designs, by the way. -edit- also the crossover has a lot to do with the perceived accuracy of a loudspeaker system. Also nothing to do with power from the amplifier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 20:17:58 GMT -5
I think I may have phrased the question poorly, David - Does a highly-sensitive driver require less current for accurate control than a less-sensitive one? Obviously, in terms of raw acoustic output, yes, a high-sensitivity driver requires less wattage to produce the same SPL, but that isn't the same as accurate control of the entire magnet/voice-coil/suspension system. Actually "accurate control of the ... system" is not even an issue. Most high sensitivity dynamic drivers have relatively short Xmax (travel) which means more of the VC remains in the flux gap more of the time and that does three things: it decreases the distortion, it increases the accuracy, and it lowers the max output capability. So in general a high efficiency driver is perceived as "more accurate" at normal listening levels because it's VC is experiencing full flux from the magnet more of the time. It has nothing to do with the amplifier's damping factor nor, indeed, with power. It's inherent to the mechanical construction of the driver. They also tend to me more expensive than lower efficiency designs, by the way. -edit- also the crossover has a lot to do with the perceived accuracy of a loudspeaker system. Also nothing to do with power from the amplifier. Hello DYohn, Could you clarify your edited part as to what you mean by "'perceived' accuracy of a loudspeaker system"? The following sentence also brings me to ask for clarification as having "nothing to do with 'power' from the amplifier". As is your statement kinda flips everything I thought I knew upon its head. I'm in limbo between Boom's initial statement regarding "current" and your use of "power". Anyhoot, don't various passive crossovers offer varying loads which may be more taxing on an amplifier than say an active crossover? And don't passive crossovers vary according to the quality of parts which they are comprised of? With all the inductors, caps, and resistors [to match multi speakers in more than 1 ways systems] varying impedance may impose different loads at most frequencies while increasing impedance at the crossover frequency. Please correct me if wrong . In other words, passive crossovers depending on design impose different demands on amplifiers? Regardless, I also would like to understand how someone can determine the demands of speakers in a passive crossover network when not separating or isolating the crossover from the speakers? Don't they work as a system? And if so doesn't the design and quality of parts of the crossover as well as the overall quality of the speaker, together, contribute to the demand on the amplifier? Hope you don't mind me asking for a little clarification, enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Sept 28, 2020 21:28:51 GMT -5
One other comment about the speaker review - It can play loudly. In order for the woofer to do so (a small diameter driver moving LOTS of air), one or more of several things has to be true (assuming identical amplification):
1. The enclosure may be designed to minimize driver excursion by utilizing ports and/or transmission lines to provide additional output at specific frequencies while simultaneously minimizing the excursion of the bass driver (at those specific frequencies)
2. The magnetic structure has to be longer (and far more expensive) so that the voice coil and former are still in the design gap even at maximum driver excursion (X-max) - This was the approach used by Jim Thiel
3. The magnetic structure can be of "normal length" (more economical construction) only if the voice coil and former are exceptionally long so that the same area of the coil is within the magnetic gap even at maximum driver excursion (X-max)
Numbers one and two are the preferred (but most expensive) ways of designing the driver. Number three adds significantly to the mass of the moving assembly (generally reducing sensitivity for the same magnetic flux), but that can be overcome by using LOTS of current.
Is this correct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 21:38:05 GMT -5
Boom, nice review. However, would sure like for this Mr Young guy to get more into elaborating some about Berma Sanchez.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 22:16:53 GMT -5
Boom, nice review. However, would sure like for this Mr Young guy to get more into elaborating some about Berma Sanchez. Who is Berma Sanchez? And, dating? I wasn't even aware dating existed in high school being a private schooled late bloomer myself.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 8:04:36 GMT -5
Actually "accurate control of the ... system" is not even an issue. Most high sensitivity dynamic drivers have relatively short Xmax (travel) which means more of the VC remains in the flux gap more of the time and that does three things: it decreases the distortion, it increases the accuracy, and it lowers the max output capability. So in general a high efficiency driver is perceived as "more accurate" at normal listening levels because it's VC is experiencing full flux from the magnet more of the time. It has nothing to do with the amplifier's damping factor nor, indeed, with power. It's inherent to the mechanical construction of the driver. They also tend to me more expensive than lower efficiency designs, by the way. -edit- also the crossover has a lot to do with the perceived accuracy of a loudspeaker system. Also nothing to do with power from the amplifier. Hello DYohn, Could you clarify your edited part as to what you mean by "'perceived' accuracy of a loudspeaker system"? The following sentence also brings me to ask for clarification as having "nothing to do with 'power' from the amplifier". As is your statement kinda flips everything I thought I knew upon its head. I'm in limbo between Boom's initial statement regarding "current" and your use of "power". Anyhoot, don't various passive crossovers offer varying loads which may be more taxing on an amplifier than say an active crossover? And don't passive crossovers vary according to the quality of parts which they are comprised of? With all the inductors, caps, and resistors [to match multi speakers in more than 1 ways systems] varying impedance may impose different loads at most frequencies while increasing impedance at the crossover frequency. Please correct me if wrong . In other words, passive crossovers depending on design impose different demands on amplifiers? Regardless, I also would like to understand how someone can determine the demands of speakers in a passive crossover network when not separating or isolating the crossover from the speakers? Don't they work as a system? And if so doesn't the design and quality of parts of the crossover as well as the overall quality of the speaker, together, contribute to the demand on the amplifier? Hope you don't mind me asking for a little clarification, enjoy. Lots of questions. Let me try. The perceived accuracy of a loudspeaker means that there are some systems we interpret as more accurate than others when in reality the measurements might show them as equal. All audio is perception - what we interpret in our heads. A system with slightly better transient response or less upper midrange distortion or less loudspeaker cone ringing might be perceived as more accurate. It might also be perceived as "better," "faster", with "better imaging" and a number of other subjective descriptions all of which mean the same thing. The system is performing more accurately because it is introducing fewer artifacts (distortions.) As to why amplifier power does not drive this, it's simple. Power only creates the energy behind the signal. More power means louder, but that's all. It really has nothing to do with how the loudspeaker performs regardless of all the micro-effects marketing people love to tout (like damping factor.) Lastly concerning crossovers. Yes, the performance will vary somewhat based on component selection, with things like electrolytic capacitors and iron-core inductors introducing signal distortions that poly caps and air-core inductors do not. So component selection has something to do with perceived quality. But more importantly to what I'm talking about (accuracy) is the electrical "order" or Q of the crossover network. A higher order crossover is much more efficient than a lower order and contributes to perceived accuracy because higher efficiency is perceived as "faster," "tighter," "more accurate" by our brains. This is true whether it is an active or a passive crossover: in general higher transfer slopes (24db/oct) are more efficient and sound better when properly employed than lower slopes (6db/oct.) Yes I know there are plenty of "no crossover" advocates out there and more power to them, since they can accomplish similar design goals using different theories. But I am not one of those and will always argue that a properly implemented high-order filter network sounds better than lower order networks. The only thing that places demand on the amplifier is the total impedance load being driven. Everything from amplifier + output to amplifier chassis ground. Amplifiers are voltage devices that drive signal current through loudspeaker load. When I use the term "power" that's what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 29, 2020 9:24:14 GMT -5
Ahhh tis the tale of the mysterious Berma Sanchez you seek, eh?
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Sept 29, 2020 10:47:07 GMT -5
The elusive Ms. Sanchez was a skilled guitarist, owned the first Martin guitar I'd ever seen or heard, was a creative song writer, and a quick-witted lyricist (she invented "Muff the tragic *bleep*" sung to the tune of "Puff, the magic dragon" extemporaneously in front of an audience during a performance). She was also quite fetching and smart enough to deflect my clumsy teenaged amorous advances with both grace and compassion. I lost track of her after high school and have regretted doing so ever since. Hope she has a great life!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 11:12:33 GMT -5
Hello DYohn, Could you clarify your edited part as to what you mean by "'perceived' accuracy of a loudspeaker system"? The following sentence also brings me to ask for clarification as having "nothing to do with 'power' from the amplifier". As is your statement kinda flips everything I thought I knew upon its head. I'm in limbo between Boom's initial statement regarding "current" and your use of "power". Anyhoot, don't various passive crossovers offer varying loads which may be more taxing on an amplifier than say an active crossover? And don't passive crossovers vary according to the quality of parts which they are comprised of? With all the inductors, caps, and resistors [to match multi speakers in more than 1 ways systems] varying impedance may impose different loads at most frequencies while increasing impedance at the crossover frequency. Please correct me if wrong . In other words, passive crossovers depending on design impose different demands on amplifiers? Regardless, I also would like to understand how someone can determine the demands of speakers in a passive crossover network when not separating or isolating the crossover from the speakers? Don't they work as a system? And if so doesn't the design and quality of parts of the crossover as well as the overall quality of the speaker, together, contribute to the demand on the amplifier? Hope you don't mind me asking for a little clarification, enjoy. Lots of questions. Let me try. The perceived accuracy of a loudspeaker means that there are some systems we interpret as more accurate than others when in reality the measurements might show them as equal. All audio is perception - what we interpret in our heads. A system with slightly better transient response or less upper midrange distortion or less loudspeaker cone ringing might be perceived as more accurate. It might also be perceived as "batter," "faster", with "batter imaging" and a number of other subjective descriptions all of which mean the same thing. The system is performing more accurately because it is introducing fewer artifacts (distortions.) As to why amplifier power does not drive this, it's simple. Power only creates the energy behind the signal. More power means louder, but that's all. It really has nothing to do with how the loudspeaker performs regardless of all the micro-effects marketing people love to tout (like damping factor.) Lastly concerning crossovers. Yes, the performance will vary somewhat based on component selection, with things like electrolytic capacitors and iron-core inductors introducing signal distortions that poly caps and air-core inductors do not. So component selection has something to do with perceived quality. But more importantly to what I'm talking about (accuracy) is the electrical "order" or Q of the crossover network. A higher order crossover is much more efficient than a lower order and contributes to perceived accuracy because higher efficiency is perceived as "faster," "tighter," "more accurate" by our brains. This is true whether it is an active or a passive crossover: in general higher transfer slopes (24db/oct) are more efficient and sound better when properly employed than lower slopes (6db/oct.) Yes I know there are plenty of "no crossover" advocates out there and more power to them, since they can accomplish similar design goals using different theories. But I am not one of those and will always argue that a properly implemented high-order filter network sounds better than lower order networks. The only thing that places demand on the amplifier is the total impedance load being driven. Everything from amplifier + output to amplifier chassis ground. Amplifiers are voltage devices that drive signal current through loudspeaker load. When I use the term "power" that's what I'm talking about. Thank you DYohn for taking the time to respond, comprehensively. Your explanation has indeed helped me understand a little more the relationship between the crossover and speaker........ up until the speaker posts. Last question if you or anyone else might chime in. Forgive me for not stating ohms law the math etc as I've had little to no interest in practicing such the most of my latter life. I've at this point forgotten more than I now know. The portion of Boom's review which dealt with multiple amplifiers is a particular interest to me. I assume that power is a general term which may be split by the atomic hammer on the analytical anvil to determine the distinct makeup, if so, power equals wattage while current equals amperage? From what I think understand current or 'amperage' limits the power or 'wattage' of an amplifier at any given ohm load? Please correct me if wrong anytime. Why is this important to me? Well, because I was looking for an explanation as to why amplifiers from brand X class models vs brand Z class models offered better fidelity when powering my speaker/towers. The speaker towers [4 way] are 23 ohms @ 48 Hz and as low as 2.3 ohms @ 100-108 Hz. The average impedance over the audible range is 6.4 ohms and the median impedance is 4.6 ohms. The 2.3 ohms at around 100hz [if correct presents a more difficult load to amplifiers in that frequency range] explaining why brand x class model with much smaller power supply [less rated current output] sounded less than ideal concerning fidelity than brand z class with much larger power supply and higher current [amperage] output. Again, correct if wrong perhaps this is the reason behind different amplifiers in Boom's review of speakers which were withering or blooming provided they were planted in fertile soil w/ a nearby running stream of water [current]?
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 11:41:50 GMT -5
It is true that a high current amplifier VS a high voltage amplifier can sound very different even if the power output is the same. Power = current times voltage, so they both play equal parts. But they can sound very different. Indeed, two amplifiers with the exact same design philosophy can sound different. There are many things that affect this other than simple math. I once owned an Emotiva UPA-2 and an LPA-1 at the same time. Both of these amps were supposedly designed similarly - they were indeed designed by the same person and were sold at the same time. The UPA-2 sounded MUCH better to me driving the same loudspeaker. I still own that amp. The LPA-1 was effective and sufficient, but I replaced it. It's about taste and perception. It's why there are so many offerings out there in the world. If there was one true answer we would all buy it. Also, it's why you can spend a lifetime in this business/hobby and discover new sounds every day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 11:48:23 GMT -5
It is true that a high current amplifier VS a high voltage amplifier can sound very different even if the power output is the same. Power = current times voltage, so they both play equal parts. But they can sound very different. Indeed, two amplifiers with the exact same design philosophy can sound different. There are many things that affect this other than simple math. I once owned an Emotiva UPA-2 and an LPA-1 at the same time. Both of these amps were supposedly designed similarly - they were indeed designed by the same person and were sold at the same time. The UPA-2 sounded MUCH better to me driving the same loudspeaker. I still own that amp. The LPA-1 was effective and sufficient, but I replaced it. It's about taste and perception. It's why there are so many offerings out there in the world. If there was one true answer we would all buy it. Also, it's why you can spend a lifetime in this business/hobby and discover new sounds every day. By the way I really enjoyed your explanation of "'perceived' accuracy" pertaining to fidelity. Often times I find one doesn't place themselves into an equation when interpreting various source evidences such as data or records. Coming from the Cornelius Van Til Presuppositional Apologetic school of thought I tend to place more emphasis on why we believe what we think [beforehand] as having a bearing on the very premises in which we establish to build a logical construct/framework. Sometimes these very things are the obstacles needing to be overcome beforehand, that is, before we examine evidences. For example, why does someone think there isn't one standard bearer of truth [the perfect reference]? And, if not who's the standard bearer of truth? No need to answer here. Just sharing an interest that may be extracted from behind my questions and my personal writings. I find that reviewing is a developed skill which hasn't been developed in me as of yet [perhaps w/ enough absurd hours I'll develop the skill]. I mean, painters see hues in a sunset that escape me during breath taking times and to add insult to injury they put the breath taking moment to canvas in awe inspiring ways. Musicians pluck the melodies which fall upon deaf ears from out of the air and replicate them in an instrument. Likewise, our faculties in which we interpret our perception/and understanding our tastes often need be refined as they become marred and distorted not reflecting at times the perfect source and image before us. That is, given the source of truth is behind all creation around and inside us why does man suppress, twist, malign, and distort the truth? Just wanted to thank you for providing material I enjoyed reading and one that I agreed w/. Have a blessed day, DYohn!
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 12:47:24 GMT -5
re: perceptions and truth. I come from the Erving Goffman school of framed reality. We all perceive reality differently based on our personal frames of reference, which are shaped by our lifetimes of experiences, education, beliefs and attitudes. No two sets of frames are ever the same, therefor there is no one "Truth." There is only perception.
|
|