A Audio, hi-fi and car audio  forum. Audio Banter

Go Back   Home » Audio Banter forum » UK Audio Newsgroups » uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi) (uk.rec.audio) Discussion and exchange of hi-fi audio equipment.

Upgrade questions



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 08:36 AM posted to uk.rec.audio
Stewart Pinkerton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,367
Default Upgrade questions

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:56:33 GMT, "Form@C" wrote:

Point taken.
Right, the (transient!) SPL at the concert seat could hit around 190dB.


Nope, 105-110 dB absolute maximum.

Pick up a hand grenade, pull the pin, wait five seconds, and you'll
experience about 160dB - briefly.

Example: Kef Coda 70: 2.83v/1m 91dB, 8R, frequency not stated (efficient
for small boxes). So at, say, 4m away you get 79dB at your listening
position for 1W at the speakers (it appears to be 6dB each time the
distance is doubled).


Only in an anechoic chamber, and it's 3dB, not 6. In a big enough room
for a 4 metre listening distance, you'll probably get about 85-87dB/w,
depending on furnishings.

So, for our 190dB we need 2.5W at the speaker?


NO!!!!!!! Where the heck are you getting these numbers?

If you're getting 85 dB/w, then for 105 dB, you need 100 watts.

Ok,
not a lot of bass in that little box (-3dB at 45Hz), and they have a max
output of 109dB anyway, but you get the idea... 5W is still a lot.


No, it's pathetically inadequate.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #92 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 11:58 AM posted to uk.rec.audio
Keith G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,388
Default Upgrade questions


"Anthony Edwards" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:35:50 GMT, Form@C wrote:

Maybe not, but do you want *accurate* reproduction or an amp that is

good
to listen to?


Accurate reproduction please. I want to hear the music as it was
recorded, with (as far as possible) nothing added or taken away,
rather than some hi-fi equipment designer's vision of what music
*should* sound like.




No chance......






  #93 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 11:58 AM posted to uk.rec.audio
Keith G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,388
Default Upgrade questions


"Anthony Edwards" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:35:50 GMT, Form@C wrote:

Maybe not, but do you want *accurate* reproduction or an amp that is

good
to listen to?


Accurate reproduction please. I want to hear the music as it was
recorded, with (as far as possible) nothing added or taken away,
rather than some hi-fi equipment designer's vision of what music
*should* sound like.




No chance......






  #94 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 12:10 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Jim Lesurf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,051
Default Upgrade questions

In article , Ian Molton
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:34:37 +0000 (GMT) Jim Lesurf
wrote:


I once used parallel pairs of ESL57's for a while. :-)


Jim, you're a sick, sick, (and very lucky) individual ;-)


I just have a long history of linked periods of temporary madness... 8-]

Anyway, insanity always was an entrance requirement for anyone who was
serious about hifi. :-)

In my defence, I should say that the parallel 57's was mainly for test
purposes to confirm the amplifier was quite happy to drive such insane
loads. Never really had any room for prolonged domestic use of paralleled
57's... :-) TBH, also, getting pairs to agree in terms of stereo image and
frequency response at a listening position is also a nightmare unless you
can stack them vertically with great care.

....although I must admit I *am* now tempted by 989's... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
  #95 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 12:10 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Jim Lesurf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,051
Default Upgrade questions

In article , Ian Molton
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:34:37 +0000 (GMT) Jim Lesurf
wrote:


I once used parallel pairs of ESL57's for a while. :-)


Jim, you're a sick, sick, (and very lucky) individual ;-)


I just have a long history of linked periods of temporary madness... 8-]

Anyway, insanity always was an entrance requirement for anyone who was
serious about hifi. :-)

In my defence, I should say that the parallel 57's was mainly for test
purposes to confirm the amplifier was quite happy to drive such insane
loads. Never really had any room for prolonged domestic use of paralleled
57's... :-) TBH, also, getting pairs to agree in terms of stereo image and
frequency response at a listening position is also a nightmare unless you
can stack them vertically with great care.

....although I must admit I *am* now tempted by 989's... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
  #96 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 12:16 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Jim Lesurf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,051
Default Upgrade questions

In article , Old Fart at Play
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:



Having an amp that can drive difficult loads means the amp is finding
this task easy, even when I once used parallel pairs of ESL57's for a
while. :-)



Any idea what's the best way to stack ESL57's? Should they be coplanar
or focussed at the listener's head?


Bit of a can of worms... :-)

My own preference for serious use would be vertical stacking in a fairly
strong frame, but with the units angled to converge their axies at the
listening position. However acheiving this and getting good results is a
bit of challenge.

An alternative is to deliberately fire one pair off sideways at an angle,
thus ensuring the listener is well off axis at HF for one pair. This can
improve things, and is the sort of approach that ARA employed. However this
is all very room specific, so it really comes down to 'experiment until
happy or exhausted!" :-)

These days I would not personally be tempted to try this route, I'd just
buy a pair of 988's or 989's... :-) My own view is that PJW knew what he
was doing when he replaced the 57 with the 63, and the 988 is essentially
(so I understand) just a 63 with better components and a more rigid
physical assembly.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
  #97 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 12:16 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Jim Lesurf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,051
Default Upgrade questions

In article , Old Fart at Play
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:



Having an amp that can drive difficult loads means the amp is finding
this task easy, even when I once used parallel pairs of ESL57's for a
while. :-)



Any idea what's the best way to stack ESL57's? Should they be coplanar
or focussed at the listener's head?


Bit of a can of worms... :-)

My own preference for serious use would be vertical stacking in a fairly
strong frame, but with the units angled to converge their axies at the
listening position. However acheiving this and getting good results is a
bit of challenge.

An alternative is to deliberately fire one pair off sideways at an angle,
thus ensuring the listener is well off axis at HF for one pair. This can
improve things, and is the sort of approach that ARA employed. However this
is all very room specific, so it really comes down to 'experiment until
happy or exhausted!" :-)

These days I would not personally be tempted to try this route, I'd just
buy a pair of 988's or 989's... :-) My own view is that PJW knew what he
was doing when he replaced the 57 with the 63, and the 988 is essentially
(so I understand) just a 63 with better components and a more rigid
physical assembly.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
  #98 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 02:48 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Jim Lesurf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,051
Default Upgrade questions

In article , Form@C
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:32:20 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Sorry, it wasn't very clear was it? What I meant to say is that "high"
power amps are usually designed and set up to produce their best
results an appreciable way up to their rated power output.


No, they aren't.


Oh yes they are... You will almost always see distortion levels etc
quoted for a particular power output level. That power level is often
quoted at either full rated power or at least somewhere well above 5W or
so


I'd agree that it is quite common for magazines these days to only quote a
single value in this sort of way. However the main reason they took to
doing this is that for most amplifiers they found that the distortion at
lower power levels is nearly always *smaller* than at a 'high' power level.
Thus they stopped bothering to show the old THD/power plots.

However if you look at actual specs as quoted by makers, they have often
quoted in terms like:

1) less than 0.03 percent at 700 Hz, 0.1 percent at 10kHz. Any level up to
45W into 8 Ohms. (Quad 303).

2) less than 0.1 percent THD at any level up to 60 watt into 8 Ohms. 20Hz
to 20kHz. (Lentek integrated amp. early 1980's)

3) less than 0.02 percent at any level up to 200 W into 8 Ohms, for any
frequency in the 20Hz - 20kHz range. (Armstrong 732 power amp. Chose this
as I know the amp quite well. :-) )

Quad also used to show plots of TDH versus power with a 0.03% measurement
floor at a few watts.

I checked the above by looking again at some of the old literature I have
in front of me. The above were chosen as they were the nearest values to
hand, but I'd expect that most decent solid-state amps of the past 20 odd
years would provide similar results. In each case the THD tends to fall
away with the power level even at low powers where the measurement vanishes
into the noise floor.

Hence the way this is quoted in reviews, etc, is mainly for brevity. It
should not be taken to imply the distortion actually rises at low powers.


- very loud in most domestic rooms. (You may also notice that
manufacturers don't often quote exactly what the load was theat the amp
was driving when the measurements were taken.


In my experience 8 Ohms is ether quoted, or the standards assume it is 8
Ohms in the absence of any statement saying it is not.

Some amps measure well into resistive loads only.) Only the better amps
will quote specifications at low power levels.


It can be the case that THD can be higher into reactive loads in some
cases. However this effect is probably small in most cases, and also tends
to fall away as you reduce the power. Probably minimal in most cases
relative to the distortion levels in most *speakers*. :-)



You are correct, but that predetermined level can be very vague in many
cases. There is no way for the user to tell when the amp changes out of
class A without getting a scope out,


If the user can't tell, then perhaps it does not matter much. :-)

However my own experience was that the quiescent level was much the same,
or higher, in high power AB amps than lower power ones. Hence if you think
this matters for low power use, I'd go for high power amps (higher
quiescent) on this basis. That said, the levels at which the amp runs with
both devices nominally conducting is generally quite low, so I have my
doubts this matters much once an amp is set up and biassed sensibly.

so manufacturers often "bend" the quoted output to make the specs look
good! An amp can be classed as AB if it produces the first 50mW as class
A of course...


Never seen that put forwards as a formal specification. So far as I know,
AB just means that both sides conduct at low output power. Provided this is
done well, crossover artefacts should be efectively removed so far as THD
is concerned.

Class B amplifiers always cut off one of the devices at some point.


I would have defined this slightly differently. So far as I am concerned,
class B means that the positive and negative devices *never* conduct
symultaneously.

This is the primary cause of the "transistor sound" - a lot of
odd-harmonic distortion.


This was the case in the 1960's. I have my doubts that it is very relevant
these days. I would suspect that most decent solid state power amps during
the last 20 odd years do an effective job of removing any cross over
effects. We know more now than then, and modern devices are somewhat better
than the devices we had to make do with back then... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
  #99 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 02:48 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Jim Lesurf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,051
Default Upgrade questions

In article , Form@C
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:32:20 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Sorry, it wasn't very clear was it? What I meant to say is that "high"
power amps are usually designed and set up to produce their best
results an appreciable way up to their rated power output.


No, they aren't.


Oh yes they are... You will almost always see distortion levels etc
quoted for a particular power output level. That power level is often
quoted at either full rated power or at least somewhere well above 5W or
so


I'd agree that it is quite common for magazines these days to only quote a
single value in this sort of way. However the main reason they took to
doing this is that for most amplifiers they found that the distortion at
lower power levels is nearly always *smaller* than at a 'high' power level.
Thus they stopped bothering to show the old THD/power plots.

However if you look at actual specs as quoted by makers, they have often
quoted in terms like:

1) less than 0.03 percent at 700 Hz, 0.1 percent at 10kHz. Any level up to
45W into 8 Ohms. (Quad 303).

2) less than 0.1 percent THD at any level up to 60 watt into 8 Ohms. 20Hz
to 20kHz. (Lentek integrated amp. early 1980's)

3) less than 0.02 percent at any level up to 200 W into 8 Ohms, for any
frequency in the 20Hz - 20kHz range. (Armstrong 732 power amp. Chose this
as I know the amp quite well. :-) )

Quad also used to show plots of TDH versus power with a 0.03% measurement
floor at a few watts.

I checked the above by looking again at some of the old literature I have
in front of me. The above were chosen as they were the nearest values to
hand, but I'd expect that most decent solid-state amps of the past 20 odd
years would provide similar results. In each case the THD tends to fall
away with the power level even at low powers where the measurement vanishes
into the noise floor.

Hence the way this is quoted in reviews, etc, is mainly for brevity. It
should not be taken to imply the distortion actually rises at low powers.


- very loud in most domestic rooms. (You may also notice that
manufacturers don't often quote exactly what the load was theat the amp
was driving when the measurements were taken.


In my experience 8 Ohms is ether quoted, or the standards assume it is 8
Ohms in the absence of any statement saying it is not.

Some amps measure well into resistive loads only.) Only the better amps
will quote specifications at low power levels.


It can be the case that THD can be higher into reactive loads in some
cases. However this effect is probably small in most cases, and also tends
to fall away as you reduce the power. Probably minimal in most cases
relative to the distortion levels in most *speakers*. :-)



You are correct, but that predetermined level can be very vague in many
cases. There is no way for the user to tell when the amp changes out of
class A without getting a scope out,


If the user can't tell, then perhaps it does not matter much. :-)

However my own experience was that the quiescent level was much the same,
or higher, in high power AB amps than lower power ones. Hence if you think
this matters for low power use, I'd go for high power amps (higher
quiescent) on this basis. That said, the levels at which the amp runs with
both devices nominally conducting is generally quite low, so I have my
doubts this matters much once an amp is set up and biassed sensibly.

so manufacturers often "bend" the quoted output to make the specs look
good! An amp can be classed as AB if it produces the first 50mW as class
A of course...


Never seen that put forwards as a formal specification. So far as I know,
AB just means that both sides conduct at low output power. Provided this is
done well, crossover artefacts should be efectively removed so far as THD
is concerned.

Class B amplifiers always cut off one of the devices at some point.


I would have defined this slightly differently. So far as I am concerned,
class B means that the positive and negative devices *never* conduct
symultaneously.

This is the primary cause of the "transistor sound" - a lot of
odd-harmonic distortion.


This was the case in the 1960's. I have my doubts that it is very relevant
these days. I would suspect that most decent solid state power amps during
the last 20 odd years do an effective job of removing any cross over
effects. We know more now than then, and modern devices are somewhat better
than the devices we had to make do with back then... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
  #100 (permalink)  
Old January 5th 04, 02:49 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Jim Lesurf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,051
Default Upgrade questions

In article , Form@C
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:17:32 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



No, they aren't - if you want *accurate* reproduction.


Maybe not, but do you want *accurate* reproduction or an amp that is
good to listen to? I, personally, would much rather listen to 2nd
harmonic distortion rather than 3rd!


Personally, I'd prefer to listen to music, not to any added distortion at
audible levels - irrespective of its order for THD. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2025 Audio Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.