Sound Practices Mailing List Files - Volume 1
=========================================================================
From: Young-Min Chung <ymch@camars.kaist.ac.kr>
Subject: [Q] 12" coaxial driver from Altec ??
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:11:06 +0900 (KST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n002
Hi, all
I'm curious if the Altec has made 12" coaxail driver which has a 12" woofer
(maybe something like 414 ??) in place of 15" woofers used in Altec 604 series
drivers.
if it exists, I'd like to know the model number and which woofer / high
frequency unit is fitted with the driver.
thanks in advance.
- ----------
Young-Min Chung
from Korea
=========================================================================
From: William Eckle <wmeckle@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: [Q] 12" coaxial driver from Altec ??
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 01:00:32 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n003
>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:04:00 -0700
>To: Young-Min Chung <<ymch@camars.kaist.ac.kr>, sound@mail.tpoint.net
>From: William Eckle <<wmeckle@primenet.com>
>Subject: Re: [Q] 12" coaxial driver from Altec ??
>In-Reply-To: <<199708280911.SAA29366@camars.kaist.ac.kr>
>
>At 06:11 PM 8/28/97 +0900, Young-Min Chung wrote:
>
>>I'm curious if the Altec has made 12" coaxail driver which has a 12" woofer
>>(maybe something like 414 ??) in place of 15" woofers used in Altec 604 series
>>drivers.
>
>Hi Young-Min:
> First, let us get our terms straight. Altec's "coaxial" drivers were called "Duplex". I be
lieve
>the term "coaxial" was a Jensen trademark. Altec made a "Biflex" model also which was a single
>cone made of two different inner & outer materials, which will not be discussed here. Altec's "Dupl
ex"
>series had a separate horn loaded driver which passed through the center of the low frequency
>driver and some were multi celled horns and some had no cells.
>
> Altec made three versions of Duplex speakers using various 15" low frequency drivers, the
>602, 604, and 605 series. They also made a 12" version Duplex speaker, the 601 series.
>
>>if it exists, I'd like to know the model number and which woofer / high
>>frequency unit is fitted with the driver.
>
> The high frequency driver/horn used in the 601 (12") series appears to be the same one
>used in the 602 (15") series, as the magnet weight (.188 lbs.) and flux (10,000 Gauss) are the
>same. The flux of the high frequency driver in the 604 series is 15,500 Gauss and the flux of the
>high frequency driver in the 605 series is 14,000 Gauss.
>
> The woofer used in the 601 series is NOT the same as the 414 series even though the
>magnet weight is the same, the flux (414 = 10,000 Gauss, 601 = 10,400 Gauss) is different and
>the cone resonance (414 = 30 Hz, 601 = 39 Hz) is also different, as is the power handling (414 =
>25 Watts, 601 = 20 Watts).
>
> Hope this helps.
>
<bold><underline>-=<color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Bill
Eckle</color>=-
</underline></bold>wmeckle@primenet.com
<italic><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param> Phoenix, Arizona
USA</color></italic>
=========================================================================
From: William Eckle <wmeckle@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: [Q] 12" coaxial driver from Altec ??
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:04:00 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n004
At 06:11 PM 8/28/97 +0900, Young-Min Chung wrote:
>I'm curious if the Altec has made 12" coaxail driver which has a 12" woofer
>(maybe something like 414 ??) in place of 15" woofers used in Altec 604 series
>drivers.
Hi Young-Min:
First, let us get our terms straight. Altec's "coaxial" drivers were called "Duplex". I bel
ieve
the term "coaxial" was a Jensen trademark. Altec made a "Biflex" model also which was a single
cone made of two different inner & outer materials, which will not be discussed here. Altec's "Duple
x"
series had a separate horn loaded driver which passed through the center of the low frequency
driver and some were multi celled horns and some had no cells.
Altec made three versions of Duplex speakers using various 15" low frequency drivers, the
602, 604, and 605 series. They also made a 12" version Duplex speaker, the 601 series.
>if it exists, I'd like to know the model number and which woofer / high
>frequency unit is fitted with the driver.
The high frequency driver/horn used in the 601 (12") series appears to be the same one
used in the 602 (15") series, as the magnet weight (.188 lbs.) and flux (10,000 Gauss) are the
same. The flux of the high frequency driver in the 604 series is 15,500 Gauss and the flux of the
high frequency driver in the 605 series is 14,000 Gauss.
The woofer used in the 601 series is NOT the same as the 414 series even though the
magnet weight is the same, the flux (414 = 10,000 Gauss, 601 = 10,400 Gauss) is different and
the cone resonance (414 = 30 Hz, 601 = 39 Hz) is also different, as is the power handling (414 =
25 Watts, 601 = 20 Watts).
Hope this helps.
<bold><underline>-=<color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Bill
Eckle</color>=-
</underline></bold>wmeckle@primenet.com
<italic><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param> Phoenix, Arizona
USA</color></italic>
=========================================================================
From: gdahl@televar.com (Gary Dahl)
Subject: Re: [Q] 12" coaxial driver from Altec ??
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:53:11 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n004
Hi Young-Min,
>I'm curious if the Altec has made 12" coaxail driver which has a 12" woofer
>(maybe something like 414 ??) in place of 15" woofers used in Altec 604 series
>drivers.
Altec mad a unit called the 601 which used a 414 woofer with a coaxially-mounted
horn-loaded tweeter. The tweeter was not a compression driver as in the 604
series, but rather a metal dome. I have been told that the dome itself was
actually
a diaphragm which had been designed as a microphone element. As such, these
diaphragms are quite easily blown. Worse, Altec ran out of replacement
diaphragms
a few years ago.
I owned a pair of 601's several years ago. Honestly, I wasn't terribly
impressed
with them, but others may feel differently. In my opinion, the crossover
frequency
(was it 3 kHz?) was too high for the 12" woofer...dispersion is so narrow
at that
point that the off-axis response just below 3 kHz would have a major suckout.
If the crossover frequency were to be lowered, the small tweeter horn would not
have any chance of functioning properly.
This is the same problem that 604's have (one of them, anyway) but it
occurs at a
lower frequency. Some people have been able to get quite good results from
604's
nevertheless...
Best regards,
Gary
gdahl@televar.com
"So many tubes, so little time"
=========================================================================
From: Michael Hsu <mcwhsu@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Q: choosing res/cap values for 1st order crossover
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 14:51:33 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n211
Hi gang,
Quick question,
I have a first order lowpass crossover (at 500hz), between two gain stages,
consisting of a resistor and capacitor. I have calculated several combinations of
resistor and capacitor values which will give me the approximate -3db point. What
is the advantages/ disadvantages of choosing a high resistor value with a low
capacitor value - versus a low resistor value with high capacitor value?
Thanks and cheers, Michael.
=========================================================================
From: Michel Paquette <paqm01@GEL.USherb.CA>
Subject: Re: Q: choosing res/cap values for 1st order crossover
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 13:30:38 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n211
If you use high value impedances (high resistor, low cap) then at least
there will be less loading on the preceding stage...
Michel
>Hi gang,
>
>Quick question,
>
>I have a first order lowpass crossover (at 500hz), between two gain stages,
>consisting of a resistor and capacitor. I have calculated several
>combinations of
>resistor and capacitor values which will give me the approximate -3db
>point. What
>is the advantages/ disadvantages of choosing a high resistor value with a low
>capacitor value - versus a low resistor value with high capacitor value?
>
>Thanks and cheers, Michael.
=========================================================================
From: Michael Hsu <mcwhsu@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Q: coupling cap change
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:54:47 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n064
I am thinking of changing the coupling caps of the Loesch preamp from
0.1uf to 0.047uf. The grid resistor is .5 meg so the low frequency
effect should be acceptable. How about the impact on the RIAA
equalization? The two 0.1uf caps are in the two stage RIAA sections.
Thanks a bunch. Michael
=========================================================================
From: Michael Hsu <mcwhsu@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Q for speaker/crossover buffs
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 19:32:40 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n375
Here's a question for you guys. I got a speaker kit from Zalytron which
uses the Focal 5K013L midwoof and the TC90 TDX tweeter. The kit comes
with parts to a complicated third order crossover + zobel. I guess I
could keep the zobel but I really want to change the crossover to a
first order.
I was thinking of cutting it at around 4000 hz (5uf and 0.32mh) or 5100
hz (3.9uf and 0.25mh) with the parts that I have on hand - and keep the
zobel. Does this seem reasonable - it looks like that I am still in the
workable freq region for both the tweet and woof.
Thanks guys, Michael
=========================================================================
From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Q for speaker/crossover buffs
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 00:51:12 -0600 (MDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n375
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Michael Hsu wrote:
> Here's a question for you guys. I got a speaker kit from Zalytron which
> uses the Focal 5K013L midwoof and the TC90 TDX tweeter. The kit comes
> with parts to a complicated third order crossover + zobel. I guess I
> could keep the zobel but I really want to change the crossover to a
> first order.
>
> I was thinking of cutting it at around 4000 hz (5uf and 0.32mh) or 5100
> hz (3.9uf and 0.25mh) with the parts that I have on hand - and keep the
> zobel. Does this seem reasonable - it looks like that I am still in the
> workable freq region for both the tweet and woof.
It's really several questions, as I see it. But first, I have some. Why
do you think this design will be improved by subtracting filter orders?
Do you know how these drivers behave outside their critical passbands? Do
you know their recommended F3 and their maximum permissible alternative
F3? What kind of response variations constitute "workable freq region"
for you? What are the lobing consequences of first-order crossovers?
Designing a driver for optimum performance in its target passband
regularly, if not indeed normally, entails materials choices and response
aberrations that place nasties close to the optimum passband. Keeping them
inaudible, or at least unobjectionable, may require steeper filter orders
or resetting of the filter knees.
I don't think your request admits of a general answer. Without specific
knowledge of the slope behavior of these drivers, no one can give you
definitive advice. Perhaps a shrewd conjecture based on detailed
experience with these units or an educated guess based on vast
general experience. But nothing that approaches refinement.
Doug Purl
=========================================================================
From: Scott Grammer <tubedude@cdc.net>
Subject: Re: Q for speaker/crossover buffs
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 06:12:35 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n375
Douglas Purl wrote:
> (snip)
> > I was thinking of cutting it at around 4000 hz (5uf and 0.32mh) or 5100
> > hz (3.9uf and 0.25mh) with the parts that I have on hand - and keep the
> > zobel. Does this seem reasonable - it looks like that I am still in the
> > workable freq region for both the tweet and woof.
>
> It's really several questions, as I see it. But first, I have some. Why
> do you think this design will be improved by subtracting filter orders?
> (snip)
>
> I don't think your request admits of a general answer.
> (snip)
I agree with you, Douglas; I think your answer is most accurate. However, I
also feel that there is room for experimentation (especially when it is the
only practical alternative to in-depth research and analysis, which it is for
many people) and let's not forget the fun factor.
What I mean is that while one cannot, as you said, give an answer that
"approaches refinement", it is possible to say that yes this is a good idea,
give it a try, or no it isn't, don't waste your time.
Michael even said that he wished to use components he had on hand; this tells
me that he is not after laboratory-perfect results, he just wants to try
different things and see if they improve matters. Had he wanted to be precise,
he would be asking where to find a 3.428 uF cap or a 0.27882mH choke.
Michael, I assume that that is a 5 inch driver you speak of. Not knowing the
exact parameters of that driver, I will say this: The old rule of thumb was
that you don't want to cross over a driver at a frequency whose wavelength in
air is less than the diameter of the diaphragm in question. 5100 Hz has a
wavelength (at room temperature, at sea level, at 70% humidity) of about 2.5
inches, and a 5 inch driver probably has an effective diaphragm diameter of
about 4 inches, so I'd say 5100 is a bit too high. 4kHz has a wavelength of
about 3.4 inches, so it's a little closer. Needless to say, there are drivers
that perform well above this rule of thumb; Doc's sEx drivers come to mind.
However, in a multiway system, one does need to consider things like the
beaming effect that comes into play at the upper limits of drivers, and how
this will play havoc with the dispersion pattern of the system as a whole, and
in an almost identical vein, what it will do to the off-axis frequency
response. Keep in mind that while your woof will beam a bit at 5k, the tweet
will not. At off-axis listening points you will hear more tweet and less woof,
upsetting the frequency response, as well as the phase response. On axis
listening will be affected as well, because the reflected sound will be
colored due to the off-axis sound (which is most of what is being reflected)
being colored.
My suggestion is try it and see if you like it, but I would tend to lean
toward the lower frequency.
Finally, let me say that I am not trying to cast aspersions at Doug, or his
answer. I feel that he is technically correct. I just think that in this case,
like most cases, there is another way to look at the question, which will
yield a very different answer.
- --
Check out TubeDude's Webpage of Vacuum Tube Lore!
http://www.cdc.net/~tubedude/
Now with Lemon Scented Borax!
=========================================================================
From: "Jon Lane" <jhlane@email.msn.com>
Subject: RE: Q for speaker/crossover buffs
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 06:20:30 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n375
> Here's a question for you guys. I got a
speaker kit from Zalytron which
> uses the Focal 5K013L midwoof and the TC90 TDX
tweeter. The kit comes
> with parts to a complicated third order
crossover + zobel. I guess I
> could keep the zobel but I really want to
change the crossover to a
> first order.
>
> I was thinking of cutting it at around 4000 hz
(5uf and 0.32mh) or 5100
> hz (3.9uf and 0.25mh) with the parts that I
have on hand - and keep the
> zobel. Does this seem reasonable - it looks
like that I am still in the
> workable freq region for both the tweet and woof.
Sadly, while well intentioned, a xover calculated with your
calculator typically yields a response far short of the
desires result. Too many variables involved. But take
heart: for just a few well spent bucks you could fire up
CALSOD or the like to model your intended system. Amazing
learning tool. Doug's correct in that the stop band
behavior has virtually as much to do with the sum as the
in-band output does. To say nothing of impedance
variations...
Or you could twist up a simple first order crossover with
Zobel and listen your way to reasonable or even spectacular
performance. Depends on driver linearity. Try an 0.5-1.0
mH coil and Zobel on your woofer; adjust the high-pass cap
to taste. Tip: the values in the L-Pad you'd presumably use
to tailor the tweeter can make all the difference in the
world as you get down to a fine mesh. Try all the values in
the intended range in each leg. Sometimes tenths of ohms
separate a merely great two way from real music.
Jon Lane
=========================================================================
From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Q for speaker/crossover buffs
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:45:42 -0600 (MDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n376
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Scott Grammer wrote:
> I agree with you, Douglas; I think your answer is most accurate. However, I
> also feel that there is room for experimentation (especially when it is the
> only practical alternative to in-depth research and analysis, which it is for
> many people) and let's not forget the fun factor.
>
> What I mean is that while one cannot, as you said, give an answer that
> "approaches refinement", it is possible to say that yes this is a good idea,
> give it a try, or no it isn't, don't waste your time.
>
> Michael even said that he wished to use components he had on hand; this tells
> me that he is not after laboratory-perfect results, he just wants to try
> different things and see if they improve matters. Had he wanted to be precise,
> he would be asking where to find a 3.428 uF cap or a 0.27882mH choke.
Scott's reply is a good corrective to my posting, which may appear to have
been saying "Go home, little boy." In fact I stopped short of tearing off
on further complications, such as the impedance misbehaviors you mention.
My purpose is not to daunt but to suggest why desired results may be
harder to achieve than a cookbook approach implies. Knowledge and time
are the speaker builder's essential tools. Still, what some men do by
effort others do by luck.
A confession, however. Part of what motivated me to respond was a whiff I
got that the questioner was professing a common article of faith, that
simpler is better. The majority of the world's loudspeakers designed with
the simplest of networks -- a solo blocking capacitor -- are aimed at
cheap costs rather than quality performance.
In the words of Sportin' Life, "It ain't necessarily so."
Doug Purl
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: Q for speaker/crossover buffs
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 19:19:16 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n376
... but don't let that stop you from experimenting, it's quite
educational. I have more than once (in fact, every time I've tried -
not all that many times though) successfully reduced coloration in a
speaker system by using a higher order crossover, only to hear the
life sucked out of the music. Douglas is right of course, the
suggested crossover is likely to be bettter (less coloration, less
distortion, many other virtues) than anything you can come up with,
but you might not like it all that well in spite of all that.
- -Paul Joppa
Douglas Purl wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Michael Hsu wrote:
>
> > Here's a question for you guys. I got a speaker kit from Zalytron which
> > uses the Focal 5K013L midwoof and the TC90 TDX tweeter. The kit comes
> > with parts to a complicated third order crossover + zobel. I guess I
> > could keep the zobel but I really want to change the crossover to a
> > first order.
> >
> > I was thinking of cutting it at around 4000 hz (5uf and 0.32mh) or 5100
> > hz (3.9uf and 0.25mh) with the parts that I have on hand - and keep the
> > zobel. Does this seem reasonable - it looks like that I am still in the
> > workable freq region for both the tweet and woof.
>
> It's really several questions, as I see it. But first, I have some. Why
> do you think this design will be improved by subtracting filter orders?
> Do you know how these drivers behave outside their critical passbands? Do
> you know their recommended F3 and their maximum permissible alternative
> F3? What kind of response variations constitute "workable freq region"
> for you? What are the lobing consequences of first-order crossovers?
>
> Designing a driver for optimum performance in its target passband
> regularly, if not indeed normally, entails materials choices and response
> aberrations that place nasties close to the optimum passband. Keeping them
> inaudible, or at least unobjectionable, may require steeper filter orders
> or resetting of the filter knees.
>
> I don't think your request admits of a general answer. Without specific
> knowledge of the slope behavior of these drivers, no one can give you
> definitive advice. Perhaps a shrewd conjecture based on detailed
> experience with these units or an educated guess based on vast
> general experience. But nothing that approaches refinement.
>
> Doug Purl
=========================================================================
From: Michael Hsu <mcwhsu@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Q: how do I connect the power transformer.
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:35:30 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n109
Hello everyone,
I've got this power trans with the following 9 input taps:
1 - 125V
2 - 110V
3 - 10V
4 - 0V
5 - 125V
6 - 110V
7 - 10V
8 - 0V
9 - screen
If the wall voltage is 125V for example, do I parallel Input 1 and Input
5 (for the +) along with Input 4 and Input 8 (for the -)? Or do I just
use Inputs 1 (for the +) and 4 (for the -) only?
Thought I'd better figure this out, otherwise, it'll probably blow up on
me....
Thanks a bunch, Michael
=========================================================================
From: "Daniel J. Marshall" <danmarshall@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Q: how do I connect the power transformer.
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:57:09 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n109
Michael Hsu wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've got this power trans with the following 9 input taps:
>
> 1 - 125V
> 2 - 110V
> 3 - 10V
> 4 - 0V
> 5 - 125V
> 6 - 110V
> 7 - 10V
> 8 - 0V
> 9 - screen
>
> If the wall voltage is 125V for example, do I parallel Input 1 and Input
> 5 (for the +) along with Input 4 and Input 8 (for the -)? Or do I just
> use Inputs 1 (for the +) and 4 (for the -) only?
>
> Thought I'd better figure this out, otherwise, it'll probably blow up on
> me....
>
> Thanks a bunch, Michael
Michael,
You should parallel the windings as you have indicated (4-8 and 1-5). A
single primary winding will be overloaded if the transformer is operated
anywhere near its rating. When paralleling windings (in general) an
easy method to verify proper phasing is to make your best guess then
connect one end of each of the two windings together. Then energise one
of the windings and measure the voltage between the other two ends of
the respective windings. If properly phased for parallel operation, the
voltage will be near zero and you can safely complete the parallel
connection with confidence. If improperly phased for parallel
operation, the voltage will be approximately twice the voltage of the
energized winding. This would be the proper connection for series
operation of the windings, of course, the 2X line voltage is connected
to the two winding ends and the ct left floating (safely insulated).
Dan Marshall
=========================================================================
From: Simon Busbridge <S.C.Busbridge@bton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Q: how do I connect the power transformer.
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:57:44 +0000 (GMT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n109
Hi Michael,
You've got a "series/parallel" primary arrangement on your transformer.
For use in Europe you connect the windings in series, start to finish, so
that the 230 V can be applied. In the US for the same power you will
need approximately twice the primary current (the US voltage being roughly
half what it is here) so you parallel up the windings, taking care to get
start to start and end to end. It will work with just one but the
current rating will be wrong and your transformer will run unnecessarily
hot.
Hope this is of help,
Simon
Dr Simon Busbridge
University of Brighton
Lewes Road
Moulsecoomb
Brighton BN2 4GJ
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 0044 (0)1273 642542
Fax: 0044 (0)1273 642327
e-mail: s.c.busbridge@bton.ac.uk
"..biology is what you do when you don't have the maths for real
science.." (sliders)
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Michael Hsu wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've got this power trans with the following 9 input taps:
>
> 1 - 125V
> 2 - 110V
> 3 - 10V
> 4 - 0V
> 5 - 125V
> 6 - 110V
> 7 - 10V
> 8 - 0V
> 9 - screen
>
> If the wall voltage is 125V for example, do I parallel Input 1 and Input
> 5 (for the +) along with Input 4 and Input 8 (for the -)? Or do I just
> use Inputs 1 (for the +) and 4 (for the -) only?
>
> Thought I'd better figure this out, otherwise, it'll probably blow up on
> me....
>
> Thanks a bunch, Michael
>
=========================================================================
From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:26:28 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n309
>This where "cheating" by deliberately adding vent resistance (fiberfill in
>the vent, or drinking straws, etc.) can prove useful by detuning the entire
>alignment in the direction of a resistive-vent system. The F3 is much
>higher of course, similar to a closed-box (no free lunch folks), but the
>system is much less reactive, easier to drive, and also doesn't care as
>much about shifts in Qts in the driver, box loss, etc.
>Lynn T. Olson
I need to cheat to do something about the boomy bottom end of my Diatone
boxes. Is it "drinking straws" or "drink straws"? The former are kind of
big, and the latter are tiny, diameter-wise. I think I have a source for
the latter.
While I'm at it, anyone know the T-S parameters of the Diatone 16 ohm
Anniversary drivers? TIA - Pat
Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
=========================================================================
From: "Greg Monfort" <wingracer@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:12:37 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n309
I like the old 'click test' myself. Make a tester with a s.p.d.t.
toggle or push-button switch, 1.5v battery and a resistor. If
amplifier damping factor is known: Res = driver z/ damping factor.
If not known use .5 ohm.
ON
============O_______O===== Res =========== spkr +
|+ (c)
| OFF O
Battery |
| |
| |
========================================= spkr -
The speaker should reproduce a distinct "click" on 'make' and
'break'. If there is "hangover" or "boom", then stretch a piece of
double knit, speaker cloth, or similar material over the port
opening and test again. You may have to add more than one piece to
properly damp the speaker.
GM
- -----Original Message-----
>I need to cheat to do something about the boomy bottom end of my
Diatone
>boxes.
>Pat Currie
=========================================================================
From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:47:26 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n309
>I like the old 'click test' myself. Make a tester with a s.p.d.t.
>toggle or push-button switch, 1.5v battery and a resistor. If
>amplifier damping factor is known: Res = driver z/ damping factor.
>If not known use .5 ohm.
> ON
> ============O_______O===== Res =========== spkr +
> |+ (c)
> | OFF O
> Battery |
> | |
> | |
> ========================================= spkr -
>The speaker should reproduce a distinct "click" on 'make' and
>'break'. If there is "hangover" or "boom", then stretch a piece of
>double knit, speaker cloth, or similar material over the port
>opening and test again. You may have to add more than one piece to
>properly damp the speaker.
>
>GM
Thanks Greg -
I'll have to give this a try. - Pat
Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
=========================================================================
From: Ron Bales <rbales@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:10:38 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n309
Patrick Currie wrote:
>
> >I like the old 'click test' myself. Make a tester with a s.p.d.t.
> >toggle or push-button switch, 1.5v battery and a resistor. If
>
> Thanks Greg -
>
> I'll have to give this a try. - Pat
>
When I first built my QWTP's I used this as a tuning test and found it most
helpful! So much quicker and more decisive than trying to do the initial
sorting with a musical test.
ROn
ROn
=========================================================================
From: "Greg Monfort" <wingracer@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:12:11 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n309
Yes, I first saw it in the '50's, but I imagine it's older than
that. I'm surprised it's not included in more recent how-to books.
The later books I've seen say to staple a piece of insulation over
the back of the driver. Most times this overdamps the system and I
would only recommend doing this if more than 2-3 pieces over the
port doesn't work.
GM
- -----Original Message-----
>>
>> >I like the old 'click test' myself. Make a tester with a
s.p.d.t.
>> >toggle or push-button switch, 1.5v battery and a resistor. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>When I first built my QWTP's I used this as a tuning test and found
it most
>helpful! So much quicker and more decisive than trying to do the
initial
>sorting with a musical test.
>
>ROn
>
>ROn
=========================================================================
From: "J. Gordon Rankin" <waudio@cinti.net>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 98 15:47:09 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n309
>I need to cheat to do something about the boomy bottom end of my Diatone
>boxes. Is it "drinking straws" or "drink straws"? The former are kind of
>big, and the latter are tiny, diameter-wise. I think I have a source for
>the latter.
Pat,
If you are using the 2.6CU FT box that was suggested in the manuals, that
is actually way too big. Also if you stuff that at all the air speed
change could make the size of the box even bigger. I would make a box
around 2CU and it should work better. All the T/S parameters are supplied
with the drivers.
Gordon
=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
mailto:waudio@cinti.net
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
ph.fx. 513-271-4186 USA
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 20:32:47 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n310
At 03:47 PM 6/12/98 -0500, J. Gordon Rankin wrote:
>>I need to cheat to do something about the boomy bottom
>>end of my Diatone
>>boxes...
>Pat,
>
>If you are using the 2.6CU FT box that was suggested in the
>manuals, that is actually way too big. Also if you stuff that at
>all the air speed change could make the size of the box
>even bigger. I would make a box around 2CU and it should
>work better. All the T/S parameters are supplied
>with the drivers.
>
>Gordon
>=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
>mailto:waudio@cinti.net
>http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
Diatones are cool. And while the bass doesn't get down with
E Power Biggs it is nice clear clean & not very boxy. But:
1. There's some sort of tiny small cabinet which people first
talked about as though it were an official. This might be the
one Koji sometimes sells with the drivers. It is very small
compared to:
2. There is an odd page of drawings for a box of about 2.3<-
cubic feet. I think Koji sometimes passed out this page--
I got my copy from some Joe. I built this one.
2A. There is no "official" Diatone cabinet? The manufacturer
only shows it as a bare driver buried in the Japanese web
page. [Koji actually has more info on his web page].
3. There were these posts about booming and ringing
Diatones right when I was getting my drivers. And they were
hollow sounding when I popped the drivers into empty
cabinets for a quick listen/test. Cool [but hollow]. So I went
nuts, with coatings, Deflex panels, and a lot of long fiber wool.
Dead dull sound. I spent one day listening, and pulling out
handfuls of wool. When all the wool was gone, they sounded
fine.
4. The Deflex stuff is cool. I remembered Gordon described
using the material in his SP#9 article on building a full range
[Triangle driver] speaker.
5. Gordon mentioned to me that I should try a little less
volume than the 2.3 cubic feet. Now he'e talking out loud
about 2.0 cubic feet. Gordon has developed and manufactured
a serious speaker using the Diatone drivers. Listen.
6. Gordon's speakers are well finished [mine aren't] and
are carefully developed [mine aren't] and with a lot of
undiscussed tweaks. I think Mike has a pair. Mike has had
and listened to a lot of speakers. Mike likes these. {M.L.
please comment}.
--Carter
I think my friend, my Ellington Band brother Pat has the
small boxes.
=========================================================================
From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:38:23 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n318
>At 03:47 PM 6/12/98 -0500, J. Gordon Rankin wrote:
>
>>>I need to cheat to do something about the boomy bottom
>>>end of my Diatone
>>>boxes...
>
>>Pat,
>>
>>If you are using the 2.6CU FT box that was suggested in the
>>manuals, that is actually way too big.
And then Carter wrote:
>I think my friend, my Ellington Band brother Pat has the
>small boxes.
Really small. The Diatone boxes I have are maybe 1.1 - 1.2 cuft, and are
very flimsy.
Love to put these drivers in the correct box. Suggestions for vent
dimensions for the 2.0 cuft box? TIA - Pat
Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:22:03 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n319
At 08:35 AM 6/23/98 -0500, Patrick Currie wrote:
>
>>>>I need to cheat...
>
and...
>
>Love to stick these drivers in the right box. Suggestions on vent
>dimensions for the 2.0 box? TIA - Pat
>
The 2.3 cubic foot design has a rectagular vent
2 inches by 4 inches [or x inches round] and 2
inches deep.
--Carter
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 21:34:19 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n382
>X-POP3-Rcpt: carterh@mail
>X-Sender: carterh@mail.crl.com
>Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 20:32:47 -0500
>To: "J. Gordon Rankin" <waudio@cinti.net>
>From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
>Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
>Cc: "Sound Practices MAIL LIST" <sound@deliverator.io.com>
>Sender: owner-sound@lists.io.com
>
>At 03:47 PM 6/12/98 -0500, J. Gordon Rankin wrote:
>
>>>I need to cheat to do something about the boomy bottom
>>>end of my Diatone
>>>boxes...
>
>>Pat,
>>
>>If you are using the 2.6CU FT box that was suggested in the
>>manuals, that is actually way too big. Also if you stuff that at
>>all the air speed change could make the size of the box
>>even bigger. I would make a box around 2CU and it should
>>work better. All the T/S parameters are supplied
>>with the drivers.
>>
>>Gordon
>>=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
>>mailto:waudio@cinti.net
>>http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
>
>Diatones are cool. And while the bass doesn't get down with
>E Power Biggs it is nice clear clean & not very boxy. But:
>
>1. There's some sort of tiny small cabinet which people first
>talked about as though it were an official. This might be the
>one Koji sometimes sells with the drivers. It is very small
>compared to:
>2. There is an odd page of drawings for a box of about 2.3<-
>cubic feet. I think Koji sometimes passed out this page--
>I got my copy from some Joe. I built this one.
>2A. There is no "official" Diatone cabinet? The manufacturer
>only shows it as a bare driver buried in the Japanese web
>page. [Koji actually has more info on his web page].
>3. There were these posts about booming and ringing
>Diatones right when I was getting my drivers. And they were
>hollow sounding when I popped the drivers into empty
>cabinets for a quick listen/test. Cool [but hollow]. So I went
>nuts, with coatings, Deflex panels, and a lot of long fiber wool.
>Dead dull sound. I spent one day listening, and pulling out
>handfuls of wool. When all the wool was gone, they sounded
>fine.
>4. The Deflex stuff is cool. I remembered Gordon described
>using the material in his SP#9 article on building a full range
>[Triangle driver] speaker.
>5. Gordon mentioned to me that I should try a little less
>volume than the 2.3 cubic feet. Now he'e talking out loud
>about 2.0 cubic feet. Gordon has developed and manufactured
>a serious speaker using the Diatone drivers. Listen.
>6. Gordon's speakers are well finished [mine aren't] and
>are carefully developed [mine aren't] and with a lot of
>undiscussed tweaks. I think Mike has a pair. Mike has had
>and listened to a lot of speakers. Mike likes these. {M.L.
>please comment}.
>
> --Carter
>
>I think my friend, my Ellington Band brother Pat has the
>small boxes.
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 21:35:03 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n382
>X-POP3-Rcpt: carterh@mail
>Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:35:12 -0500
>To: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
>From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
>Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
>X-Status:
>
>>At 03:47 PM 6/12/98 -0500, J. Gordon Rankin wrote:
>>
>>>>I need to cheat to do something about the boomy bottom
>>>>end of my Diatone
>>>>boxes...
>>
>>>Pat,
>>>
>>>If you are using the 2.6CU FT box that was suggested in the
>>>manuals, that is actually way too big.
>
>And then Carter wrote:
>>
>>
>>I think my friend, my Ellington Band brother Pat has the
>>small boxes.
>
>Actually, based on the outside dimensions of the rather flimsy box, I'd say
>only about 1.1 to 1.2 cft.
>
>Love to stick these drivers in the right box. Suggestions on vent
>dimensions for the 2.0 box? TIA - Pat
>
>Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
>
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 21:35:29 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n382
>X-POP3-Rcpt: carterh@mail
>X-Sender: carterh@mail.crl.com
>Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:22:03 -0500
>To: sound practices <sound@deliverator.io.com>
>From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
>Subject: Re: Qloss & Diatones
>Sender: owner-sound@lists.io.com
>
>
>At 08:35 AM 6/23/98 -0500, Patrick Currie wrote:
>>
>>>>>I need to cheat...
>>
>and...
>>
>>Love to stick these drivers in the right box. Suggestions on vent
>>dimensions for the 2.0 box? TIA - Pat
>>
>
>The 2.3 cubic foot design has a rectagular vent
>2 inches by 4 inches [or x inches round] and 2
>inches deep.
>
> --Carter
>
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Michael Hsu <mcwhsu@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Q: output tube feedback?
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:34:41 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n159
Hello everyone,
I have been looking at some diagrams from MJ and noticed that on several
SE designs there is a 0.5 to 1 uf cap from the bias resistor (of the
output tube) to a potential divide point on the grid resistors (e.g.,
220k - 22k - ground). Another design has the secondary of the
interstage connected to a 47k then to ground, with the cap at the
interstage and resistor tie point. Sorry I am not using the correct
technical terms to describe the circuit; I hope the description makes
some sense. Is it some sort of feedback, how does it work?
Thanks and cheers!! Michael
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 01:10:54
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n527
For those who followed this discussion, I have a precise answer from Quad:
the old Quads require an amplifier to be able to deliver a maximum peak
current of 3.7 A.
dbk
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 03:24:49
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n527
A 06:54 PM 12/8/98 +1100, Bart Shepherd a écrit :
>So what's the fuss about amplifiers.
>
>If Quad can be taken at their word about the current demands, any true
>100watt amp can provide this current up to a load impedance of 7.3ohms. I
>assume this current level is because of an impedance drop not increase, so
>requires a maximum of only 54watts into 4ohms or 28 watts into 2 ohms (more
>likely) or worst case 14 watts into 1 ohm ( I hope unlikely). A 100watt tube
>amp connected to the 4 ohm tap should manage this. The current through and
>voltage drop across the speaker is controlled solely by the dynamic load
>impedance for any amplifier rated at or above these required power levels.
>So any such amplifier should be able to do the job regardless of SS or tube,
>transformer or no transformer.
Yes, a 100-watt amp connected to the 4-ohm tap would meet the current
requirement. But tube amps don't seem to sound so good when the transformer
is misterminated, however. I've never liked the sonic effect, for example,
with Dyna MkIIIs on the 8-ohm taps. Moreover, a 100-watt amp connected to
the 4-ohm tap might actually not have enough voltage to drive the speakers
to the limit in the low-frequency band where impedance is very high and the
voltage is needed. The 303 was designed for the speaker, and I've never
heard anything better.
>Didn't Mr Walker make some famous statement to this effect about identical
>performance if operated within their (Quad 2 and its SS successor) stated
>limits? How does his credibility hold up??? Or have I missed some subtlety
here? Is this another variation on the tube
>watts different to SS watts debate?
No, that's my point. The 303 was designed explicitly to take the speakers
to their maximum limits, whereas the Quad II stays well inside the
envelope. The 303 is three times more powerful. It does about 50 W at
clipping into 8 Ohms. So Walker didn't lie.
>
>Did Quad mention the impedance which causes this current peak?
The impedence curve is pretty horrible. I don't have a copy handy, but the
resistive component drops way off in the high treble, becoming almost
purely capacitive.
dbk
=========================================================================
From: "Bart Shepherd" <bart.shepherd@ttm.com.sg>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:54:45 +1100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n527
So what's the fuss about amplifiers.
If Quad can be taken at their word about the current demands, any true
100watt amp can provide this current up to a load impedance of 7.3ohms. I
assume this current level is because of an impedance drop not increase, so
requires a maximum of only 54watts into 4ohms or 28 watts into 2 ohms (more
likely) or worst case 14 watts into 1 ohm ( I hope unlikely). A 100watt tube
amp connected to the 4 ohm tap should manage this. The current through and
voltage drop across the speaker is controlled solely by the dynamic load
impedance for any amplifier rated at or above these required power levels.
So any such amplifier should be able to do the job regardless of SS or tube,
transformer or no transformer.
Didn't Mr Walker make some famous statement to this effect about identical
performance if operated within their (Quad 2 and its SS successor) stated
limits? How does his credibility hold up???
Or have I missed some subtlety here? Is this another variation on the tube
watts different to SS watts debate?
Did Quad mention the impedance which causes this current peak?
Bart
David Klien supplied the following:
>For those who followed this discussion, I have a precise answer from Quad:
>the old Quads require an amplifier to be able to deliver a maximum peak
>current of 3.7 A.
>
>dbk
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 12:38:32
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n528
A 09:35 PM 12/8/98 +1100, Bart Shepherd a écrit :
>David Klein said:
>
>I dont see why any SS amplifier of equal power will offer greater voltages
>into high impedances or work into a greater range of impedances than an
>optimally matched tube amp.
Just that the 303 has power supply rails that are tailored exactly to
deliver the maximum voltage for the speakers. An off-the-shelf tube amp
might not hit this optimum value, since it has only certain fixed taps. But
the tube amp isn't going to have the same kind of transient
response/recovery characteristics either.
>
>I can, however, readily understand why a Dyna MkIII on the 8 ohm tap may not
>work well into a 2 ohm load! The Quads may also reveal other problems with
>this amp.
>
>I understand you are pleased with the 303 but suggest an optimally
>terminated tube amp of adequate power could sound as good or better. I have
>heard stacked Quads sounding superb through an all tube setup and in my
>view, more dynamic, detailed and transparent than 303's.
Hundred-watt tube amps are uncommon, especially for driving Quads. My
original point was that the delicate little esoteric tube amps that are
favored by Quad owners are not capable of driving the loudspeaker properly,
and hence the speaker gets a bad rap for gutlessness, and I think I have
successfully made that point. Your example of a hundred-watt valve amp with
correct transformer termination is certainly not the norm, and I still
question whether even this would perform as crisply and dynamically as the
303s. The optimal setup for double Quads is separate 303 amplifiers for
each, or other powerful, high-current, transformerless SS amps that are
limited to 32 V at the supply rails and are unconditionally stable into
capacitive loads.
dbk
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 13:04:07 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n528
At 01:10 8-12-98, David B. Klein wrote:
>For those who followed this discussion, I have a precise answer from Quad:
>the old Quads require an amplifier to be able to deliver a maximum peak
>current of 3.7 A.
A friend of mine runs his ESLs with EL84 PP (12 watt, ultralinear) ans that
makes music !
Quads reccomendation may be right from the theoretical point of view
Guido
>dbk
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "Bart Shepherd" <bart.shepherd@ttm.com.sg>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 21:35:33 +1100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n528
David Klein said:
snip
>Yes, a 100-watt amp connected to the 4-ohm tap would meet the current
>requirement. But tube amps don't seem to sound so good when the transformer
>is misterminated, however. I've never liked the sonic effect, for example,
>with Dyna MkIIIs on the 8-ohm taps
snip
Aah! Now we are getting to the possible root of the problem. Transformer
mis-termination.
A well designed transformer can work correctly into all loads for which it
was designed.
I dont know how Dyna MkIII output transformers are designed but taps may not
be the answer.
My 211 amp output transformers are designed to drive loads down to 1.9 ohms.
They do this by offering four output windings which are wired in series,
parallel or series parallel to match the appropriate loads. To handle 1.9
ohms all four are in parallel.
Such features cannot be easily offered on commercial amplifiers by just
adding an extra output terminal.
I dont see why any SS amplifier of equal power will offer greater voltages
into high impedances or work into a greater range of impedances than an
optimally matched tube amp.
I can, however, readily understand why a Dyna MkIII on the 8 ohm tap may not
work well into a 2 ohm load! The Quads may also reveal other problems with
this amp.
I understand you are pleased with the 303 but suggest an optimally
terminated tube amp of adequate power could sound as good or better. I have
heard stacked Quads sounding superb through an all tube setup and in my
view, more dynamic, detailed and transparent than 303's.
Bart
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 11:39:24 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
Hi again,
Guido wrote:
>>A friend of mine runs his ESLs with EL84 PP (12 watt,
>>ultralinear) ans that makes music !
David wrote:
>The problem is too many people are listening to Quads with
>setups like that. This is why the speakers are falsely reputed
>to compress dynamics, lack power handling, etc.
I have before noted that the lack of dynamics is entierly real unless we
do not want more than the level at a good seat in a concert hall for
classical music (read 95-96db peak) in a modestly sized liveing room.
The original ESL (aka ESL-57) has not much tolerance for Voltages....
The current is mostly no issue. Nor is the source Impedance.
For anything like a room-filling sound on Rock, Pop or even accoustic
Jazz no Amplifier can get the original Quad where it needs to be (for me
at least).
The Panels will begin to arc, or if present the Crowbar Circuit will set
in.
I remember a rather sad individual working in MVE (Music & Video
Exchange) in London who had tried over the years about two dozend huge
Power-Amplifiers (all Solid State) in an attempt to get any decent Level
out of a Pair of Quad ESL's.
He only succeeded in having to send them to Huntingdon a few times and
blowing up a few of these Amp's (I had to fix them).
Eventually he gave up and setteled on two pairs of Quad stacked driven
from some modest valve and a pair of active Sub's if memory serves....
Of course that kind of Money can buy a Pair of 2nd Hand ESL 63 (which I
still think are marginal for Loudness but almost liveable....).
Than again, I'm probably a mad headbanger and crazed heavy metal phreak
(or maybe not)....
Kind regards Thorsten.
======================================
e-mail:
Thorsten@tnt-audio.com
Visit TNT-Audio on the Web - the only advertising
free audio web-zine.
http://www.tnt-audio.com
======================================
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 12:13:35
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
A 01:04 PM 12/8/98 +0100, evaguido a écrit :
>At 01:10 8-12-98, David B. Klein wrote:
>>For those who followed this discussion, I have a precise answer from Quad:
>>the old Quads require an amplifier to be able to deliver a maximum peak
>>current of 3.7 A.
>
>A friend of mine runs his ESLs with EL84 PP (12 watt, ultralinear) ans that
>makes music !
>
>Quads reccomendation may be right from the theoretical point of view
>
>Guido
>
>>dbk
>>
>>
>
Hi, Guido:
The problem is too many people are listening to Quads with setups like
that. This is why the speakers are falsely reputed to compress dynamics,
lack power handling, etc.
dbk
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 12:39:30 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
Hi there,
>>Than again, I'm probably a mad headbanger and crazed heavy metal
>>phreak (or maybe not)....
>
>Bach cantatas with choir and organ make demands on the system too
>... if you lose the harpsichord when the basses are singing, you
>need to try the Quad 303 or 405 amplifier.
Sorry for me chickening out....
I prefer > 10db more sensitive Speakers and moderatly meaty SE Amp's....
No problems with arcing and while I do know a lot of people with ESL
Systems (including quite a few DIY), and while appreciate all the can
do.... Not for me, ThanX....
Later Thorsten
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 14:51:43
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
A 11:39 AM 12/8/98 PST, T. Loesch a écrit :
>Hi again,
>
>Guido wrote:
>
>>>A friend of mine runs his ESLs with EL84 PP (12 watt,
>>>ultralinear) ans that makes music !
>
>David wrote:
>
>>The problem is too many people are listening to Quads with
>>setups like that. This is why the speakers are falsely reputed
>>to compress dynamics, lack power handling, etc.
>
>I have before noted that the lack of dynamics is entierly real unless we
>do not want more than the level at a good seat in a concert hall for
>classical music (read 95-96db peak) in a modestly sized liveing room.
I'm running a single pair at the moment with B-139 KEFs as subs, and I can
easily generate complaints from both wife and lady in condo upstairs. A
pair of ESL 57s will go to about 106 dB if cut off in the 120 Hz region. In
a live room this is ample.
>
>The original ESL (aka ESL-57) has not much tolerance for Voltages....
>The current is mostly no issue. Nor is the source Impedance.
The loudspeaker will tolerate voltages up to 32 Volts peak. It requires an
amplifier that is capable of 3.7 A peak, with good transient recovery.
>
>For anything like a room-filling sound on Rock, Pop or even accoustic
>Jazz no Amplifier can get the original Quad where it needs to be (for me
>at least).
The solution there is double Quads.
>
>
>Of course that kind of Money can buy a Pair of 2nd Hand ESL 63 (which I
>still think are marginal for Loudness but almost liveable....).
But they don't sound the same ...
>
>Than again, I'm probably a mad headbanger and crazed heavy metal phreak
>(or maybe not)....
Bach cantatas with choir and organ make demands on the system too ... if
you lose the harpsichord when the basses are singing, you need to try the
Quad 303 or 405 amplifier.
dbk
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <kr4@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:02:25 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, evaguido wrote:
> It is my experience that 10 dB quality, gained in the speakers efficiency,
> are hard to obtain by increasing power, tubed or transistorized.
Is that quality or quantity? ;-)
Kal
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 17:03:22
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
A 10:09 PM 12/8/98 +0100, evaguido a écrit :
>At 12:13 8-12-98, David B. Klein wrote:
>>A 01:04 PM 12/8/98 +0100, evaguido a écrit :
>>>At 01:10 8-12-98, David B. Klein wrote:
>>>>For those who followed this discussion, I have a precise answer from Quad:
>>>>the old Quads require an amplifier to be able to deliver a maximum peak
>>>>current of 3.7 A.
>>>
>>>A friend of mine runs his ESLs with EL84 PP (12 watt, ultralinear) ans that
>>>makes music !
>>>
>>>Quads reccomendation may be right from the theoretical point of view
>>>
>>>Guido
>>>
>>>>dbk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>Hi, Guido:
>>
>>The problem is too many people are listening to Quads with setups like
>>that. This is why the speakers are falsely reputed to compress dynamics,
>>lack power handling, etc.
>
>I partly agree, but this EL84 amp I am talking about matches very well with
>the Quad.
>
>My only comment to any Quad is lack of livelyness or however one describes
>that.
>
>If I had a bigger living room the Quads would probably be there
>
>Guido
>
>>dbk
My next experiment is two stereo Quads plus center channel Quad. One could
be really elegant and use one channel of the second Quad 303 to drive the
middle Quad and the other channel to drive the subs, with summed signal,
but there are some limitations to the latter approach ... It could be a
nice compromise between single Quads and overwhelming the room with stacked
pairs.
David
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 22:09:39 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
At 12:13 8-12-98, David B. Klein wrote:
>A 01:04 PM 12/8/98 +0100, evaguido a écrit :
>>At 01:10 8-12-98, David B. Klein wrote:
>>>For those who followed this discussion, I have a precise answer from Quad:
>>>the old Quads require an amplifier to be able to deliver a maximum peak
>>>current of 3.7 A.
>>
>>A friend of mine runs his ESLs with EL84 PP (12 watt, ultralinear) ans that
>>makes music !
>>
>>Quads reccomendation may be right from the theoretical point of view
>>
>>Guido
>>
>>>dbk
>>>
>>>
>>
>Hi, Guido:
>
>The problem is too many people are listening to Quads with setups like
>that. This is why the speakers are falsely reputed to compress dynamics,
>lack power handling, etc.
I partly agree, but this EL84 amp I am talking about matches very well with
the Quad.
My only comment to any Quad is lack of livelyness or however one describes
that.
If I had a bigger living room the Quads would probably be there
Guido
>dbk
>
>
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 22:09:41 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
the 303 might be able to deliver the requested current, but that current
consists of TIM and cross as well
303 ? Never in my system !
Guido
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 22:24:36 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n529
It is my experience that 10 dB quality, gained in the speakers efficiency,
are hard to obtain by increasing power, tubed or transistorized.
By the way, better transistor amps than 303 or 405 exsist
Guido
At 12:39 8-12-98 PST, T. Loesch wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>>>Than again, I'm probably a mad headbanger and crazed heavy metal
>>>phreak (or maybe not)....
>>
>>Bach cantatas with choir and organ make demands on the system too
>>... if you lose the harpsichord when the basses are singing, you
>>need to try the Quad 303 or 405 amplifier.
>
>Sorry for me chickening out....
>
>I prefer > 10db more sensitive Speakers and moderatly meaty SE Amp's....
>
>No problems with arcing and while I do know a lot of people with ESL
>Systems (including quite a few DIY), and while appreciate all the can
>do.... Not for me, ThanX....
>
>Later Thorsten
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:54:00 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n530
At 17:02 8-12-98 -0500, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, evaguido wrote:
>
>> It is my experience that 10 dB quality, gained in the speakers efficiency,
>> are hard to obtain by increasing power, tubed or transistorized.
>
>Is that quality or quantity? ;-)
I would say both, but what I ment:
speaker of 85 dB, amp with 100 watt
or
speaker with 95 dB, amp with 10 watt
the latter kind of systems please me more, in general
They bring bot Q's
Guido
>Kal
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "dehls" <dehls@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 16:39:25 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n531
I've run my pair with Quicksilver PP300B amps (~40 watts) to
_surprising_ levels. Very satisfying, IMHO.
David
- ----------
> From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
> To: David B. Klein <dklein@microtec.net>; sound@lists.io.com
> Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 4:04 AM
>
> At 01:10 8-12-98, David B. Klein wrote:
> >For those who followed this discussion, I have a precise answer
from Quad:
> >the old Quads require an amplifier to be able to deliver a maximum
peak
> >current of 3.7 A.
>
> A friend of mine runs his ESLs with EL84 PP (12 watt, ultralinear)
ans that
> makes music !
>
> Quads reccomendation may be right from the theoretical point of
view
>
> Guido
>
> >dbk
> >
> >
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <kr4@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Quad 57 politeness: follow-up
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:06:33 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n531
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, evaguido wrote:
> At 17:02 8-12-98 -0500, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> >On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, evaguido wrote:
> >
> >> It is my experience that 10 dB quality, gained in the speakers efficiency,
> >> are hard to obtain by increasing power, tubed or transistorized.
> >
> >Is that quality or quantity? ;-)
>
> I would say both, but what I ment:
> speaker of 85 dB, amp with 100 watt
> or
> speaker with 95 dB, amp with 10 watt
> the latter kind of systems please me more, in general
I know. That's why the smiley.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: Hartmut <Hartmut.Quaschik@mch.sni.de>
Subject: Quad 606 tuning
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:48:59 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n319
Folks,
does anybody has information about tuning a Quad 606 and
606II power amp ( - have both )?
choice of integrated circuit or other tuning wanted.
regards,
Hartmut
=========================================================================
From: Direct West Investments <drakec@opera.iinet.net.au>
Subject: Quad 63's for sale in Manilla - Fwd from Analogue list
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:42:57 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n478
For those of the list in ASEAN - here's another (few) items for sale in
this part of the world.
gerry wrote:
>
> somebody, anybody make me an offer for my esl-63's. they need a home
> and i have too small an apartment-
> ships out of manila.
Also a Linn Basik for sale in Perth, West Australia
STEREO LINN BASIK plus
tone arm, Audio Technica
AT30E cartridge, both exc
cond $300 ono, 9384 4481
Perth: November 02, 1998
Area code is 08 (or country code 61, area code 8 if overseas)
(It was the Sunday Times - see http://www.newsclassifieds.com.au/)
Conrad Drake
=========================================================================
From: "Graeme Don" <g.don@norcol.ac.uk>
Subject: QUAD amplifier
Date: 13 Jan 1998 14:51:46 +0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n159
Hi,
I have been offered a QUAD 520f amplifier, I believe it's a professional
device. Does anyone have any knowledge of how it sounds or advice on whether
it's suitable for home use with old QUAD ESL's?
Thanks,
Graeme.
=========================================================================
From: "Norman Tracy" <ntracy@galstar.com>
Subject: Re: QUAD ESL Parts?
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:11:32 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n177
David, and all other QUAD ESL57 fans MUST visit:
http://people.clarkson.edu/~stokessd/
Sheldon Stokes can help get your beloved ESL57s back into top form. He
explains how OR will do it for you.
Just don't do anything rash, like buying one of his DACs over a ACG unit!
:-)
happy listening
Norman Tracy
Audio Crafters Guild
ntracy@galstar.com
http://galstar.com/~ntracy/ACG/
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David N. Barnett)
Subject: QUAD ESL Parts?
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 02:09:57 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n177
Hey, anyone got a nice, used tweeter panel for the old QUAD ESL "57"?
After over sixteen years of faithful service, one of my tweeters
finally arced. Gee, I wasn't even playin' 'em very loud at the
time....
Called QS&D, they'll have new German-made panels in a month or two,
for $500/pair, ouch! And they won't split the pair, damnit.
If anyone's got any QUAD ESL parts they wanna unload, please let me
know. Thanks!
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David N. Barnett)
Subject: Re: QUAD ESL Parts?
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:42:44 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n177
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:11:32 -0600, "Norman Tracy"
<ntracy@galstar.com> wrote:
>Sheldon Stokes can help get your beloved ESL57s back into top form. He
>explains how OR will do it for you.
Yeah, I've been considering that option, although I'm not too hip on
the downtime, I don't have a spare pair of speakers.
>Just don't do anything rash, like buying one of his DACs over a ACG unit!
Oops, too late, I already built one of Scott Nixon's "RSN" DAC
semi-kits.
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: "Graeme Don" <g.don@norcol.ac.uk>
Subject: Quad parts help
Date: 18 Oct 1997 10:01:46 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n074
Does anyone have, or know where I can get hold of, a terminal plate for the
rear of a QUAD ESL57 bass panel? Alternatively a single terminal to attach to
that plate would do.
Thanks,
Graeme D.
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David N. Barnett)
Subject: Re: Quad parts help
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:34:31 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n074
On 18 Oct 1997 10:01:46 +0100, "Graeme Don" <g.don@norcol.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Does anyone have, or know where I can get hold of, a terminal plate for the
>rear of a QUAD ESL57 bass panel? Alternatively a single terminal to attach to
>that plate would do.
E-mail me your snail-mail address and I'll send you the 3-terminal
plate for free. I've got a blown bass panel that I keep around for
show-n-tell purposes, and will gladly donate its terminal plate.
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: Mark Donen <soledadd@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Quads
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 16:15:04 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n521
Hi all,
The last issue of Listener has articles on Lowther Medallion and Avante
Garde Duo speakers.
Both the reviewers (Dudley & Beeching) -- for whatever this is worth to
anyone -- think that the ESL 57 is the greatest speaker ever.
Yet they concluded that both the horns and the whizzers were speakers
they would give up their Quads for. Pretty heterodox coming from die
hard ESL & british sound fans....do I hear the word dynamics raising its
head? Is their a spec for that one other than sensitivity? Not to
mention you can drive these speakers loud with flea fart amps that
actually sound good...
I thought it was pretty unusual that Lowthers and horns could even pop
up in the same sentence with ESLs, yet alone come out ahead of the
comparison...
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: RE: Quads and 4560D op amp
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 16:48:35
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n522
A 04:15 PM 12/5/98 -0500, Mark Donen a écrit :
>Hi all,
>
>The last issue of Listener has articles on Lowther Medallion and Avante
>Garde Duo speakers.
>
>Both the reviewers (Dudley & Beeching) -- for whatever this is worth to
>anyone -- think that the ESL 57 is the greatest speaker ever.
>
>Yet they concluded that both the horns and the whizzers were speakers
>they would give up their Quads for. Pretty heterodox coming from die
>hard ESL & british sound fans....do I hear the word dynamics raising its
>head? Is their a spec for that one other than sensitivity? Not to
>mention you can drive these speakers loud with flea fart amps that
>actually sound good...
>
>I thought it was pretty unusual that Lowthers and horns could even pop
>up in the same sentence with ESLs, yet alone come out ahead of the
>comparison...
>
>
Whatever.
Has anybody got an op-amp data book handy? Is a 4560D a valid number for an
op amp? - it's an 8-pin DIP, and my guess is it's a dual internally
compensated op-amp based on a 4558. If so, it would have the standard
pinout with the negative voltage in the bottom left corner and the positive
in the top right corner. Am I correct?
David K.
=========================================================================
From: Mark Donen <soledadd@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Quads and speaker designs in public domain
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 10:44:07 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n523
Does anyone understand this?:
"Richard A. Francis" wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Mark Donen wrote:
>
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > I didn't mention Olson or his speakers. I really know why you keep
> > bringing him up.
> >
> > If you don't like what I post you are of course free to critize. Or are
> > you against that principle?
> >
> Huh? What kind of nonsense qquestion is that? I sent you a post, and to
> the list, in which I mentioned that your incapacity to read and think led
> you to stupid results. Do you think I feel free to criticize? Or are you
> against that conclusion?
>
> I guess I was hoping you might connect some dots, stop the hypocrisy, etc.
> Whatever.
>
> Happy holidays,
>
> Rick
=========================================================================
From: rlahlum@juno.com (Ross J Lahlum)
Subject: Re: Quads and speaker designs in public domain
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:54:26 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n523
Mark,
Well, since you asked, I'll offer an opinion and a request.
Can we keep the list focused on helping each other design
good audio stuff & quit sniping? These attacks are really starting
to piss people off IMHO.
Thanks,
Ross
On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 10:44:07 -0500 Mark Donen <soledadd@worldnet.att.net>
writes:
>Does anyone understand this?:
>
>"Richard A. Francis" wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Mark Donen wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Rick,
>> >
>> > I didn't mention Olson or his speakers. I really know why you
>keep
>> > bringing him up.
>> >
>> > If you don't like what I post you are of course free to critize.
>Or are
>> > you against that principle?
>> >
>> Huh? What kind of nonsense qquestion is that? I sent you a post,
>and to
>> the list, in which I mentioned that your incapacity to read and
>think led
>> you to stupid results. Do you think I feel free to criticize? Or
>are you
>> against that conclusion?
>>
>> I guess I was hoping you might connect some dots, stop the
>hypocrisy, etc.
>> Whatever.
>>
>> Happy holidays,
>>
>> Rick
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
=========================================================================
From: bill gardner <wg44929@navix.net>
Subject: Re: Quads and speaker designs in public domain
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 20:27:29 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n523
At 10:44 AM 12/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Does anyone understand this?:
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
THATS THE QUESTION
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
>"Richard A. Francis" wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Mark Donen wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Rick,
>> >
>> > I didn't mention Olson or his speakers. I really know why you keep
>> > bringing him up.
>> >
>> > If you don't like what I post you are of course free to critize. Or are
>> > you against that principle?
>> >
>> Huh? What kind of nonsense qquestion is that? I sent you a post, and to
>> the list, in which I mentioned that your incapacity to read and think led
>> you to stupid results. Do you think I feel free to criticize? Or are you
>> against that conclusion?
>>
>> I guess I was hoping you might connect some dots, stop the hypocrisy, etc.
>> Whatever.
>>
>> Happy holidays,
>>
>> Rick
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________remember the guy a couple of years ago
that had the ongaku and every post would include a word for word quote of
some pop tunes verse ...... in the key of R flat demolished ; does anyone
know what time it is ,,,,,
DOES ANY REALLY CARE ,,, dedum ddee dum de dum BG
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: Quads and Van Alstine ST120 Mod
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 13:59:10
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n521
A 06:17 PM 12/5/98 +0100, Andrej Deticek a écrit :
>
>
>David Barnett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:44:37 -1000, trs@carlsmith.com wrote:
>>
>> >Frank Van Alstine also does an ST120 mod for about $300.
>> >It uses complementary Mosfets to lose the output cap; I
>> >think only the chassis and pwer trans are recycled.
>>
>> If he recycles the power transformer, how does he get a +/- power
>> supply out of it, to allow the elimination of the output cap? The
>> St120 has a single B+ voltage and no negative supply. And the power
>> tranny isn't center-tapped.
>>
>> --dnb
>
>Hi,
>
>I have heard the Van Alstine Dyna ST120 modification some 6 or 7 years
>ago on Quad speakers. I felt the bass was very "mushy".
>Van Alstine uses still a single B+ voltage supply in his mod and does
>not eliminate the output cap.
>
>Andrej Deticek
>
Probably a poor power supply. The Quad 303 is single-ended and cap coupled
and gets some of the most thunderous bass I've ever heard the Quads
produce! But it has a regulated power supply and a mains tranny that could
double as a boat anchor.
Thanks for the tip, though; I'll find *some* use for that ST-120 chassis
someday!
Best,
David
=========================================================================
From: Andrej Deticek <andrej.deticek@siol.net>
Subject: Re: Quads and Van Alstine ST120 Mod
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 18:17:14 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n521
David Barnett wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:44:37 -1000, trs@carlsmith.com wrote:
>
> >Frank Van Alstine also does an ST120 mod for about $300.
> >It uses complementary Mosfets to lose the output cap; I
> >think only the chassis and pwer trans are recycled.
>
> If he recycles the power transformer, how does he get a +/- power
> supply out of it, to allow the elimination of the output cap? The
> St120 has a single B+ voltage and no negative supply. And the power
> tranny isn't center-tapped.
>
> --dnb
Hi,
I have heard the Van Alstine Dyna ST120 modification some 6 or 7 years
ago on Quad speakers. I felt the bass was very "mushy".
Van Alstine uses still a single B+ voltage supply in his mod and does
not eliminate the output cap.
Andrej Deticek
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: Quads and Van Alstine ST120 Mod
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 14:14:12 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n522
David B. Klein wrote:
> ...snipped; about Dyna Stereo 120...
> Probably a poor power supply. The Quad 303 is single-ended and cap coupled
> and gets some of the most thunderous bass I've ever heard the Quads
> produce! But it has a regulated power supply and a mains tranny that could
> double as a boat anchor.
The Stereo 120 also has a regulated supply and cap-coupling. No boat
anchor though.
- -Paul Joppa
=========================================================================
From: "Mark K. Long" <long@robby.caltech.edu>
Subject: Quads, Dynamics, and Horns.
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:11:34 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n180
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:53:51 -0500 (EST), Martin Needleman
><mrndlmn@beast.toad.net> wrote:
>
>>Good grief! Quads dynamic??? I've owned Quads for over 30 years and I'm
>>convinced that they do many things better than any speaker ever made but
>>dynamics just ain't one of them. As a matter of fact, their greatly
>>compressed dynamics is probably the Quad's greatest fault.
>
>I've only owned Quads for sixteen years or so, and agree with you up
>to a point. Dynamics is by no means the speaker's strong suit, but I
>wouldn't say that they have "greatly compressed dynamics." I think
>their dynamics are just fine up to a point, then they just run out of
>steam, then they blow up. To my ear their microdynamics are just fine
>as long as you keep peak levels within their limited capabilities. A
>lot of efficient speakers that get the macrodynamic slam down pat
>(Klipschorns come to mind) won't "do quiet" like the Quads will; ya
>gotta crank 'em before they "bloom."
I've often wondered about the "microdynamics" of the quads. Has anyone
measured these things in terms of normal speaker parameters, Qtc, etc.
Surely there is issues of acoustic radiation resistance with the large
area, and unique dispersion patterns, but I'm curious what the other
parameters are.
So here goes with a silly question. Quads have small excursions, horn
drivers have small excursions, anybody ever think about using a small
electrostat or planar magnetic for a mid/high horn/waveguide? I'm
curious what the issues are. A small electrostat is sure cheaper than
a TAD compression driver. Sure would be nice to solve the high freq
beaming of the Quad.
=========================================================================
From: Kalman Rubinson <rubinsnk@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Quads, Dynamics, and Horns.
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 19:41:49 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n180
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Mark K. Long wrote:
> So here goes with a silly question. Quads have small excursions, horn
> drivers have small excursions, anybody ever think about using a small
> electrostat or planar magnetic for a mid/high horn/waveguide? I'm
> curious what the issues are. A small electrostat is sure cheaper than
> a TAD compression driver. Sure would be nice to solve the high freq
> beaming of the Quad.
Some of us remember the Decca/Kelly ribbons which were something like
that and, for HF, were way ahead of the pack.
Kal
=========================================================================
From: "Le Cleac'h J.-M." <lecleach@cgi.ensmp.fr>
Subject: Re: Quads, Dynamics, and Horns.
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:24:19 +0100 (MET)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n180
At 16:11 02/02/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>So here goes with a silly question. Quads have small excursions, horn
>drivers have small excursions, anybody ever think about using a small
>electrostat or planar magnetic for a mid/high horn/waveguide? I'm
>curious what the issues are. A small electrostat is sure cheaper than
>a TAD compression driver. Sure would be nice to solve the high freq
>beaming of the Quad.
If memory serves me correctly the Decca Kelly tweeter (or did it was the
Sunsey?) in the late 70' could be used with a horn.
Also, the Beveridge loudspeaker was a kind of acoustic lens but the outer
part was more or less a horn...
Best regards,
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h, Paris, France
=========================================================================
From: Michel Paquette <paqm01@GEL.USherb.CA>
Subject: Re: Quads, Dynamics, and Horns.
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:32:28 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n181
Marky said:
>
>So here goes with a silly question. Quads have small excursions, horn
>drivers have small excursions, anybody ever think about using a small
>electrostat or planar magnetic for a mid/high horn/waveguide? I'm
>curious what the issues are. A small electrostat is sure cheaper than
>a TAD compression driver. Sure would be nice to solve the high freq
>beaming of the Quad.
I have a copy of an AES paper somewhere about a guy built a cylindrical
array of small electrostatic panels that fired into a horn. In fact _I
think_ its the "prototype" of the Beveridge that Jean-Michel spoke about.
I can look it up if your interested. As I recalled it was an interesting
paper but I have too many other projects in hand before building this thing.
Michel
=========================================================================
From: "P.A. & M. Almeflo" <sd@ljusdal.se>
Subject: RE: Quads, Dynamics, and Horns.
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 22:50:37 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n182
Michel Paquette wrote:
> I have a copy of an AES paper somewhere about a guy built a cylindrical
> array of small electrostatic panels that fired into a horn. In fact _I
> think_ its the "prototype" of the Beveridge that Jean-Michel spoke about.
In the AES loudspeaker anthology vol. 1 there is an article about a horn
loaded electrostatic loudspeaker by Josef Merhaut.
Best regards,
Per Arne
=========================================================================
From: Michel Paquette <paqm01@GEL.USherb.CA>
Subject: Re: Quads, Dynamics, and Horns.
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:15:57 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n183
I checked last night and indeed the article is from Merhaut. Silly me
though, I forgot it home. I do remember that it dates from 1968. If you
can't access at this paper at your university I can scan it for you.
Michel
>> Marky said:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >So here goes with a silly question. Quads have small excursions, horn
>> >drivers have small excursions, anybody ever think about using a small
>> >electrostat or planar magnetic for a mid/high horn/waveguide? I'm
>> >curious what the issues are. A small electrostat is sure cheaper than
>> >a TAD compression driver. Sure would be nice to solve the high freq
>> >beaming of the Quad.
>>
Then I wrote:
>>
>> I have a copy of an AES paper somewhere about a guy built a cylindrical
>> array of small electrostatic panels that fired into a horn. In fact _I
>> think_ its the "prototype" of the Beveridge that Jean-Michel spoke about.
>> I can look it up if your interested. As I recalled it was an interesting
>> paper but I have too many other projects in hand before building this thing.
>
Then Tom added:
> Speaking of horn loaded electrostats (?) - I have a paper by the Czech
>acoustics professor Josef Merhaut, who designed (and patented, I think) an
>electrostatic compression driver, which, with a horn with a 40x40 cm mouth
>covered 300Hz-15kHz with impressively linear frequency response. It's
>basically an array of wedges with narrow slits between them (almost like
>the cross section of a conventional concentric annular phase plug), and
>with a diaphragm stretched across the rear of it, supported by insulating
>standoffs. The phase plug is made out of metal and constitutes one of
>the stator electrodes. Perforated strips of metal placed at the rear of
>the diaphragm constitute the other stator. I imagine it could be built
>with ease, especially if the phase plug wedges were made out of a
>softer material and furnished with metal sheet strips for the "inner"
>stators, making it unneccessary to have the phase plug machined from solid
>metal. I also imagine that a larger driver could be built along the same
>lines. Or, one could make it small and optimize it for HF to make a
>tweeter with a very low mass diaphram. (And direct drive it with a small
>OTL amp.)
> Jean Hiraga's "les haut parleurs" has a photo of this driver, which
>obviously has a narrow rectangular slot exit for coupling to the horn.
>
>Tom D.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _/\_ Thomas Dunker \ The Horn Speaker Home Page:
>/ \ P.O.Box 2811 \ http://invalid.ed.unit.no/~dunker/horns.html
>| | 7002 Trondheim \
>| | NORWAY \------\ "Those with head above water
>\____/ dunker@invalid.ed.unit.no \ see only the tip of the iceberg"
> |||| phone (+47)73916898 \ (Gene Dalby)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
From: Thomas Dunker <dunker@invalid.ed.unit.no>
Subject: Re: Quads, Dynamics, and Horns.
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:36:33 +0100 (MET)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n183
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Michel Paquette wrote:
> Marky said:
>
>
> >
> >So here goes with a silly question. Quads have small excursions, horn
> >drivers have small excursions, anybody ever think about using a small
> >electrostat or planar magnetic for a mid/high horn/waveguide? I'm
> >curious what the issues are. A small electrostat is sure cheaper than
> >a TAD compression driver. Sure would be nice to solve the high freq
> >beaming of the Quad.
>
>
> I have a copy of an AES paper somewhere about a guy built a cylindrical
> array of small electrostatic panels that fired into a horn. In fact _I
> think_ its the "prototype" of the Beveridge that Jean-Michel spoke about.
> I can look it up if your interested. As I recalled it was an interesting
> paper but I have too many other projects in hand before building this thing.
Speaking of horn loaded electrostats (?) - I have a paper by the Czech
acoustics professor Josef Merhaut, who designed (and patented, I think) an
electrostatic compression driver, which, with a horn with a 40x40 cm mouth
covered 300Hz-15kHz with impressively linear frequency response. It's
basically an array of wedges with narrow slits between them (almost like
the cross section of a conventional concentric annular phase plug), and
with a diaphragm stretched across the rear of it, supported by insulating
standoffs. The phase plug is made out of metal and constitutes one of
the stator electrodes. Perforated strips of metal placed at the rear of
the diaphragm constitute the other stator. I imagine it could be built
with ease, especially if the phase plug wedges were made out of a
softer material and furnished with metal sheet strips for the "inner"
stators, making it unneccessary to have the phase plug machined from solid
metal. I also imagine that a larger driver could be built along the same
lines. Or, one could make it small and optimize it for HF to make a
tweeter with a very low mass diaphram. (And direct drive it with a small
OTL amp.)
Jean Hiraga's "les haut parleurs" has a photo of this driver, which
obviously has a narrow rectangular slot exit for coupling to the horn.
Tom D.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
_/\_ Thomas Dunker \ The Horn Speaker Home Page:
/ \ P.O.Box 2811 \ http://invalid.ed.unit.no/~dunker/horns.html
| | 7002 Trondheim \
| | NORWAY \------\ "Those with head above water
\____/ dunker@invalid.ed.unit.no \ see only the tip of the iceberg"
|||| phone (+47)73916898 \ (Gene Dalby)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
From: Martin Needleman <mrndlmn@bayserve.net>
Subject: Quads, Interconnects, Assorted Trivia
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 11:45:52 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n521
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, David B. Klein wrote:
>================== snip ========================>
> I'd still love to hear the Futtermans sometime. They used cathode follower
> outputs with a big coupling capacitor, didn't they? The only thing better
> would be to drive the panels directly from the plates, and eliminate the
> Quad audio step-up trannies ...
A group of fanatics did precisely this, David, to the Quads, to the
Acoustats, etc. I believe the cult centered around Curcio in Pennsylvania.
He had a going business modifying the direct drive tube hybrids used in
the Acoustat X (converting them to pure tube) and just went on from there.
On a different note, It's always amazed me that, when driving the Quads
the signal travels through a million miles of cheap wire in the output
tranny, then through a three foot interconnect and back through a million
miles of cheap wire in the Quad input tranny [or, in a conventional
speaker, through a million miles of cheap wire in the voice coil(s)]. It's
impossible that the interconnect could make a difference isn't it? ISN'T
IT??? Nope. The interconnect can a profound difference. Mind boggling.
Martin Needleman
Curmudgeon of Annapolis
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: Quads, Interconnects, Assorted Trivia
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 13:47:32
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n521
A 11:45 AM 12/5/98 -0500, Martin Needleman a écrit :
>
>
>On a different note, It's always amazed me that, when driving the Quads
>the signal travels through a million miles of cheap wire in the output
>tranny, then through a three foot interconnect and back through a million
>miles of cheap wire in the Quad input tranny [or, in a conventional
>speaker, through a million miles of cheap wire in the voice coil(s)]. It's
>impossible that the interconnect could make a difference isn't it? ISN'T
>IT??? Nope. The interconnect can a profound difference. Mind boggling.
Absolutely true, in my experience, and yes, surprising in that sense.
Another reason why direct-driven tube or Mosfet ESLs would still be the
ideal solution. I'm not anti-tube - just anti having back-to-back trannies
in the signal path of Quads ... By the way, I do find the interconnect does
make more difference when driving the Quads with the transistor amp. The
303 is always crisper than the tube amp, regardless of interconnects, but
putting 10 Ga wire on the tube amps doesn't really approach the crispness
of the SS amp with zip cord.
Cheers,
David
=========================================================================
From: Richard Lindner <rjl@riclin.com.au>
Subject: Re: Quads, Interconnects, Assorted Trivia
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:26:45 +1100 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n535
On 5 Dec, Martin Needleman wrote:
<SNIP>
> On a different note, It's always amazed me that, when driving the Quads
> the signal travels through a million miles of cheap wire in the output
> tranny, then through a three foot interconnect and back through a million
> miles of cheap wire in the Quad input tranny [or, in a conventional
> speaker, through a million miles of cheap wire in the voice coil(s)]. It's
> impossible that the interconnect could make a difference isn't it? ISN'T
> IT??? Nope. The interconnect can a profound difference. Mind boggling.
all of which (IMHO) tends to support the view that the adverse effects
of many interconnects are more a function of the cables design with
respect to it's ability to shield the signal from RF interference
rather than the use of exotic metals etc for the conductors or special
dialectrics for insulations.
after all, the wire in the xformer is densely packed around the iron
core where (most of) it is reasonably shielded from RF interference -
likewise the driver voicecoils are shielded within the magnet structure.
the interconnect on the other hand, makes a beautiful antenna.
this isn't to say that good quality interconnects are not a good thing
(tm) - but as you say - they only constitute a very small proportion
overall of the length of conductor in the signal path.
- --
Richard Lindner Intrepid Adventurer rjl@riclin.com.au
Ph:+61 (0)413 804 075 rjl@gondwana.apana.org.au
What a long, strange trip it's been
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: Quads, Interconnects, Assorted Trivia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:19:33 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n540
At 10:26 13-12-98 +1100, Richard Lindner wrote:
>On 5 Dec, Martin Needleman wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> On a different note, It's always amazed me that, when driving the Quads
>> the signal travels through a million miles of cheap wire in the output
>> tranny, then through a three foot interconnect and back through a million
>> miles of cheap wire in the Quad input tranny [or, in a conventional
>> speaker, through a million miles of cheap wire in the voice coil(s)]. It's
>> impossible that the interconnect could make a difference isn't it? ISN'T
>> IT??? Nope. The interconnect can a profound difference. Mind boggling.
>
>all of which (IMHO) tends to support the view that the adverse effects
>of many interconnects are more a function of the cables design with
>respect to it's ability to shield the signal from RF interference
>rather than the use of exotic metals etc for the conductors or special
>dialectrics for insulations.
Shielding plays a role (but shall be considered with ALL common mode
properties, in general heavily ignored by nearly all manufacturers)
The differential mode behaviour (conductor, geometrie, isolator etc) play a
role
>after all, the wire in the xformer is densely packed around the iron
>core where (most of) it is reasonably shielded from RF interference -
>likewise the driver voicecoils are shielded within the magnet structure.
>the interconnect on the other hand, makes a beautiful antenna.
Because it has certain Common mode properties
Guido
>this isn't to say that good quality interconnects are not a good thing
>(tm) - but as you say - they only constitute a very small proportion
>overall of the length of conductor in the signal path.
>
>--
>Richard Lindner Intrepid Adventurer rjl@riclin.com.au
>Ph:+61 (0)413 804 075 rjl@gondwana.apana.org.au
> What a long, strange trip it's been
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "stanley Hwang" <hwang002@ms10.hinet.net>
Subject: quality of WE437A & STC 3A/167M
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 03:31:18 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n551
Hi All:
Does anybody pay attention to the quality of WE437A? My friend bought 20
used and returned 8. He found out that some of them the plate voltage
dropped after tubes were working for a while (max. drops was from 180V to
~60V). After he told me his story, I check my 437A's. Yes, he was right. I
have this problem too. 2 out of 4 have this problem. Both of my friend and
me have STC 3A/167M as well (around 20 pcs). Man! It is damn good; plate
voltage will not shift at all.
Regards
Stanley
=========================================================================
From: "J. Gordon Rankin" <waudio@cinti.net>
Subject: Re: quality of WE437A & STC 3A/167M
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 98 09:20:33 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n551
>Does anybody pay attention to the quality of WE437A? My friend bought 20
>used and returned 8. He found out that some of them the plate voltage
>dropped after tubes were working for a while (max. drops was from 180V to
>~60V). After he told me his story, I check my 437A's. Yes, he was right. I
>have this problem too. 2 out of 4 have this problem. Both of my friend and
>me have STC 3A/167M as well (around 20 pcs). Man! It is damn good; plate
>voltage will not shift at all.
Stanley,
I have gone through a bunch lately and never saw this problem. What is
the value of your grid resistor as this puppy wants to see 0 dcr on the
grid? Put a dc meter across the grid when this happens an note the
voltage.
Gordon
=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
mailto:waudio@cinti.net
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
ph.fx. 513-271-4186 USA
=========================================================================
From: "Le Cleac'h J.-M." <lecleach@cgi.ensmp.fr>
Subject: Re: quality of WE437A & STC 3A/167M
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:36:15 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n552
- ----------
> De : stanley Hwang <hwang002@ms10.hinet.net>
> A : Joenet <sound@lists.io.com>
> Objet : quality of WE437A & STC 3A/167M
> Date : jeudi 24 décembre 1998 20:31
>
> Hi All:
>
> Does anybody pay attention to the quality of WE437A? My friend bought 20
> used and returned 8. He found out that some of them the plate voltage
> dropped after tubes were working for a while (max. drops was from 180V to
> ~60V). After he told me his story, I check my 437A's. Yes, he was right.
I
> have this problem too. 2 out of 4 have this problem. Both of my friend
and
> me have STC 3A/167M as well (around 20 pcs). Man! It is damn good; plate
> voltage will not shift at all.
Hello,
I use WE437 and measured some of them. They give pretty constant
measurements.
But for sure as every frame grid tube with a very tiny distance between
electrodes, some heating of the grid due to grid current flowing through
can dilate the fine wires forming the grid and modify a bit its shape and
the distance to the others electrods. This can cause a variation of current
(I measured in 15 minutes, few mA variation of Ia while keeping Vg1 at
- -0.5V).
You can avoid grid current using a grid to cathod bias not above -1V (I use
- -1.8V)
Also take care to HF (BTW they can lead to bad DC voltage measurements)
You said the plate voltage dropped, what do you mean by that? (Is it DC or
AC, do you use a resistor as load or a transformer?).
If you or your friend find others of those weird tubes, please send them to
me!
:-)
Best regards,
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h, Paris, France
=========================================================================
From: "Luis" <lou@csn1.com>
Subject: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:17:53 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n251
Although I realize that the perfect amp, whether transistor or tube will
sound exactly the same, I would really like to get my feet wet with a
quality tube amplifier. I read about 'romantic' amps and other descriptive
terms. Does anyone have suggestions as to a good amp, new manufacture
or older rebuilt, that I could seek out and have a good starting point
for getting into them?
=========================================================================
From: Rick Francis <rfranci@uoft03.UTOLEDO.EDU>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:34:27 -0400 (EDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n251
Luis, in Dayton I'll be looking to pick up great old tube amps for
cheap. If you don't need lots of power, find an old Fisher, Eico, Scott,
Dyna etc. and HAVE FUN. I have this dyna sca-35, paid $50 at Dayton,
added a choke, a new cap, changed old diodes for a couple hexfreds, put a
cathode resistor and cap for each tube, redid all the dressing on the
leads to reduce hum (very noticeable improvement!), cleaned it up and
added new feet, and now it's a charmer. With a new driver circuit, it
would be even better.
You can get LOTS of great amps for $100 or less. I can buy a Scott 299C
or D with 7591s, locally, working fine, for $100. There's a nice place
to start, esp. as the 7591s will be available from Svetlana well before
you wear out the ones in it. The OPTs seem to be fine on that unit.
Perfect? Fah-gedaboudit. Get something nice and listenable and HAVE
FUN. If you want the Scott, I'll get it and bring it down to Dayton for you.
Rick Francis, rfranci@uoft03.utoledo.edu
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Luis wrote:
> Although I realize that the perfect amp, whether transistor or tube will
> sound exactly the same, I would really like to get my feet wet with a
> quality tube amplifier. I read about 'romantic' amps and other descriptive
> terms. Does anyone have suggestions as to a good amp, new manufacture
> or older rebuilt, that I could seek out and have a good starting point
> for getting into them?
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: SSell71096 <SSell71096@aol.com>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:11:32 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n252
> I would really like to get my feet wet with a quality tube amplifier. I
read about 'romantic' amps and other descriptive terms. Does anyone have
suggestions as to a good amp, new manufacture or older rebuilt, that I could
seek out and have a good starting point for getting into them?<
Before a sensible recommendation can be made more info is needed. What is the
rest of your system like, especially the speakers (impedance, efficiency etc),
what is your room like, and what are your listening tastes and habits like?
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:19:39 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n252
At 9:17 AM -0400 4/14/98, Luis wrote:
>Although I realize that the perfect amp, whether transistor or tube will
>sound exactly the same, I would really like to get my feet wet with a
>quality tube amplifier. I read about 'romantic' amps and other descriptive
>terms. Does anyone have suggestions as to a good amp, new manufacture
>or older rebuilt, that I could seek out and have a good starting point
>for getting into them?
I agree with Rick, particularly if you can find an old Fisher 400, 500 or
800 in good condition. Shouldn't cost more than $200. These are wonderful
units with glorious tuner sections, phono stage, the works. These are what
I recommend to my friends who want to get into tubes and they end up
keeping them for years and years. They are compact, attractive and play
all sorts of music extremely well. They are powerful enough to be
satisfying with any moderately-sixed commercial speaker.
Grover
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n253
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Grover Gardner wrote:
> At 9:17 AM -0400 4/14/98, Luis wrote:
> >terms. Does anyone have suggestions as to a good amp, new manufacture
> >or older rebuilt, that I could seek out and have a good starting point
> >for getting into them?
>
> I agree with Rick, particularly if you can find an old Fisher 400, 500 or
> 800 in good condition. Shouldn't cost more than $200. These are wonderful
> units with glorious tuner sections, phono stage, the works.
Remember I'm the guy who just wrote about doing cool
things to a Fisher 400. But -unless- one is pretty
happy with the quality and construction limitations
of consumer trash, I'm not totally convinced.
Let's see: they -are- units, but the tuners are thick
& tubey compared with even my old Fisher 90, the phono stage
helped kill off records... They do have tubes, but the
pleasant-enough half-drunk tubey sound isn't exactly what
you might have in mind...
> These are what I recommend to my friends who want to get
> into tubes and
> they end up keeping them for years and years.
I do think they're pleasant enough. As a destination
they're cheap painless HiFi. As a serious introduction,
it might not last so long...
> They are compact,
and cheap, which makes them a bear to use as a base for
investigation. All of the construction techniques we
think important are not important in the Fisher. Steel
chassis, grounds everywhere, weird power supplies, no room
and layout quirks make this a difficult place to learn.
Of course this is exactly the place where I've learned a
bunch, but I wonder if building if building Gordon's
little 45 amp on a pretty prepunched chassis might be a
better place to start.*
Not that I did it that way...
--Carter
*Or a 2A3 PP using some
Fisher OPT's!
=========================================================================
From: Dave Stagner <dstagner@icarus.net>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 14:48:30 -0500 (CDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n253
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Grover Gardner wrote:
> At 9:17 AM -0400 4/14/98, Luis wrote:
> >Although I realize that the perfect amp, whether transistor or tube will
> >sound exactly the same, I would really like to get my feet wet with a
> >quality tube amplifier. I read about 'romantic' amps and other descriptive
> >terms. Does anyone have suggestions as to a good amp, new manufacture
> >or older rebuilt, that I could seek out and have a good starting point
> >for getting into them?
Don't look for the "perfect amp"... that's a sure route to audio neurosis
and burnout (speaking as someone recovering from burnout, who stopped even
buying records because the stereo was so lousy). We're a LONG way from
some sort of audio Turing Test where we can't tell the difference between
recorded and live. All we can do is try to find a combination of amp,
speakers, playback devices, cables, room, lighting, spouse, and frame of
mind so we can get some real enjoyment out of recorded sound.
Learning that perfection does not exist, and there are many valid
approaches to playback (each with its own strengths and weaknesses) is the
first step toward finding a system you can live with.
> I agree with Rick, particularly if you can find an old Fisher 400, 500 or
> 800 in good condition. Shouldn't cost more than $200. These are wonderful
> units with glorious tuner sections, phono stage, the works. These are what
> I recommend to my friends who want to get into tubes and they end up
> keeping them for years and years. They are compact, attractive and play
> all sorts of music extremely well. They are powerful enough to be
> satisfying with any moderately-sixed commercial speaker.
I'd add a minor caveat to this... the old Fisher receivers used rare and
expensive 7868 and 7591 output tubes. I've been using a rebuilt Fisher
400 in desparate need of retubing while the nice triode amp sits upside
down on the coffee table, in the midst of a massive overhaul. A lot of
recent effort in a new front end (Mission CD, Audio Alchemy DDE) and
speakers (Hyperwhamodynes) reveals the weaknesses of this amp in vivid
detail. New power tubes would probably go a long way to rectify the
problems, but not as much as a really better amp.
The broader caveat is that, while older pentode amps (Fisher, Dyna, Heath,
Eico, Grommes, even McIntosh) are easy to find and often dirt cheap, they
do have some serious shortcomings - particularly soft bass, and a pleasant
but unaggressive midrange and treble. They're a real ear-opener after
harsh-sounding, "accurate" solid state amps, but things can be much
better.
In the Sound Practices/VALVE/Joenet world, there are no universal truths,
but some very common design concepts. The typical amplifier uses triode
tubes and no negative feedback (espcially global feedback). This makes
all the difference in the world. Last summer, i had a semi-restored Eico
HF-87, a very mainstream EL34 pentode amp, which was the best i had ever
owned. Then i triode-wired it. Big improvement. Then i removed the
feedback loop, and it became a whole different animal. CDs i had known
intimately for years were a brand new experience. The soft, "warm"
midrange of pentodes was gone, and a level of detail i didn't know existed
took its place. Good triode amps (at least what i like) shouldn't be soft
or romantic. They should be ruthless. Not cold, just ruthless. Warmth
should not be a euphemism for lost detail, any more than coldness should
be a pretense of accuracy.
Aside from THAT rant... tube amps require considerable attention to your
speakers. Most modern speakers are designed for high-powered solid-state
amps... mythical pure voltage sources. Lots of power is not necessary (a
little calculation of power, efficiency, and real listening levels tells
us that most of the real action requires less than a watt), but tube amps
interact with speakers much more explicitly than solid-state. Complex,
reactive crossovers and big tuned humps in the bass (the typical
minimonitor) are hard for tubes to drive well. Here in the DIY
wilderness, you'll find a lot of guys using speakers long ago rejected
from respectable hi-fi circles... theatre horns, Lowthers, Klipsch, etc.
Their high efficiency and easy loads mate well with low-powered tube amps,
which do not need to suffer with the compromises of their higher-powered
brethren. So if tubes don't work out well for you, maybe you need
different speakers. The amp/speaker interface is critical, and one of the
biggest damn lies of mainstream audio is that it doesn't matter (at least
not with their super-current amps).
Whew. Now, to un-badmouth the Fishers. :} As mainstream pentode amps
go, they're nice. Smooth sound, plenty of power for low-efficiency
mainstream speakers, excellent cosmetics, beautiful FM tuner section, and
common enough that you can get one formuch less than the price of some
Japanese home theatre junk. If you find 'em, grab 'em.
A nice old pentode amp can get you well on your way to the sort of
perverted addiction that has many of us in its evil grasp. You can
re-tube it, re-cap it, and learn a little about how the things work. Then
you can try little mods, then building your own...
- -dave
Practice beautiful randomness and act kind of senseless.
<dstagner@icarus.net>
=========================================================================
From: dslagle@earthlink.net (dave slagle)
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:11:38 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n253
carter spoke the following truths...
>Of course this is exactly the place where I've learned a
>bunch, but I wonder if building if building Gordon's
>little 45 amp on a pretty prepunched chassis might be a
>better place to start.*
>
>Not that I did it that way...
did any of us???
well i have to say its a journey and you have to start somewhere, and the
integrateds are a bit tough to figure out schematic-wise for the beginner,
i like many of us cut my teeth on a ST-70, i find it to be a reference of
sorts, it comes already working for around $250, and gives you immediate
gratification. the schematic is simple and easy to understand / work
through, and a simple triode mod and reduction of feedback will tell you a
lot... if you want to go on, you can easily revert back to stock and get
you $250 back, to the beginner i think any intro to tubes... along the DIY
lines is a good one, and although the KISS of a SE-45 or PP 2A3 may be an
appealing way to start... you have to assume you have the proper speakers,
while a trioded ST-70 will drive most anything out there and give you a
feel of what tubes can do, also there is a ton of support out there for
these puppies. they will quickly give you a point of reference, and to me
was a great intro to the diy community. i guess you have to get your feet
wet somehow... and dumping a lot of $$$ on something someone else says is a
huge risk, and pretty much anything out there you buy part-wise will lose
70%+ of its value the minute you buy it.... keep it simple and take your
time...
ha$te make$ wa$te
dave
=========================================================================
From: "Conrad Drake" <conrad.drake@intellect.com.au>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:51:52 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n256
$250 US - I wish.
the only one I've seen for sale here in West Oz was $1500 US (asking)
>>> dave slagle <dslagle@earthlink.net> 04/16/98 06:11am >>>
well i have to say its a journey and you have to start somewhere, and the
integrateds are a bit tough to figure out schematic-wise for the beginner,
i like many of us cut my teeth on a ST-70, i find it to be a reference of
sorts, it comes already working for around $250, and gives you immediate
gratification.
=========================================================================
From: "Conrad Drake" <conrad.drake@intellect.com.au>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:28:16 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n257
I agree, it's insane. But the vendor (a usually reputable hifi dealer) seems
to believe that a buyer will turn up. To put in into perspective I have not
seen any decent valve amp on offer here for less than $300 US.
If someone in West Oz has a
working ST-70 for $200US I'd be most interested in it
Conrad D
>>> E Billeci <tube@teleport.com> 04/20 2:24 pm >>>
That's an insane price. I think the seller must be "fishing", or
high on dope.
They are readily available for less than $200, and over a million
were made, so the price won't be going up soon, and has not in over 5 years.
Ed
At 02:51 PM 4/18/98 +0800, you wrote:
>$250 US - I wish.
> the only one I've seen for sale here in West Oz was $1500 US (asking)
>
>>>> dave slagle <dslagle@earthlink.net> 04/16/98 06:11am >>>
>well i have to say its a journey and you have to start somewhere, and the
>integrateds are a bit tough to figure out schematic-wise for the beginner,
>i like many of us cut my teeth on a ST-70, i find it to be a reference of
>sorts, it comes already working for around $250, and gives you immediate
>gratification.
>
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: RALPH POWER <POWER.RALPH@epamail.epa.gov>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps -Reply
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:49:34 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n253
Dave Stagner said :
>Don't look for the "perfect amp"... that's a sure route to audio neurosis.....
<Big Snip>
Great post Dave !!!! Spot On !!!!!!
- Ralph
=========================================================================
From: Rick Francis <rfranci@uoft03.UTOLEDO.EDU>
Subject: Re: quality sounding tube amps-- st-70 price
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:49:33 -0400 (EDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n257
About someone asking $1,500 for a dyna 70, Ed said:
> >>> E Billeci <tube@teleport.com> 04/20 2:24 pm >>>
>
> That's an insane price. I think the seller must be "fishing", or
> high on dope.
>
> They are readily available for less than $200, and over a million
> were made, so the price won't be going up soon, and has not in over 5 years.
>
Price on a Dyna 70 hasn't gone up in over 5 years? I was thinking that it
had gone from maybe $150 to $250 in 5 years... But maybe this is
comparing inflated WWW prices to "AudioMart" prices.
A local guy here in Toledo has been buying and fixing and modding and
selling tube gear for 15-20 years. He says it was not much over 10 years
ago that he saw some Fisher 50s (or whatever the EL-34 monoblocks were) at
a hamfest for $10-$15, and at the time he thought that was a bit HIGH.
Obviously he's one of those guys who was buying this stuff up for less
than $10/unit. He also remembers passing up dyna 70s for $20, because
he had so many already, and there would always be another one...
Rick
=========================================================================
From: Steve Van Osdell <svanos@toast.net>
Subject: Ques about audio classifieds
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 01:02:25 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n200
Guys,
Back last spring, there was a good audio classifieds list that I used to
check all the time and there was always good stuff for sale there. I can't
find it anymore. It was something like 'Beltline AudioMart' and it
originated out of Dallas and there was also a printed version that was
mailed out. I lost my bookmark to it.
Do any of you guys know if it still exists?
Thanks, Steve
=========================================================================
From: "Snoopy" <tcma@netvigator.com>
Subject: Question
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 21:54:57 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n503
Can anyone suggest me how to subscribe to this list as my friend want to
join the list and I have forgotten how.
TIA.
Regards,
Tung-cheung MA
=========================================================================
From: Scott Grammer <gesic@cdc.net>
Subject: Re: Question about Altec 414A + 802D
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 07:23:24 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n101
Jang Won Suh wrote:
>
> For high frequency region, I'm planning to use wood horn.
> But, it's very hard to decide the cross-over point.
> I was told about near 2000Hz as Altec 601 coax.
>
Dear Jang:
The Altec 601 crosses over at 1,200 Hz, not 2,000 Hz.
Cheers!
S.G.
- --
"To save every cog and wheel is the first
precaution of intelligent tinkering." -Aldo Leopold.
Check out TubeDude's Webpage of Vacuum Tube Lore!
http://www.cdc.net/~gesic
=========================================================================
From: Jang Won Suh <suh@ai.kaist.ac.kr>
Subject: Question about Altec 414A + 802D
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:19:02 +0900
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n101
Hello, Joes,
I've read several excellent articles about horn system on this list.
It fired me to plan my own horn system.
(Now I'm using PM-610 full range with 6C33C-B SE amp)
I have a pair of Altec 802D, and have ordered a pair of 414 - 16A.
Tweeter will be considered after setting up these two units.
Because my listening room is small, pettie Onken enclosure is
my choice for the bass. (as far as I know... any others?)
For high frequency region, I'm planning to use wood horn.
But, it's very hard to decide the cross-over point.
I was told about near 2000Hz as Altec 601 coax.
An article in Sound Practices recommends 500Hz as 288 driver.
The typical cross-over point of Altec-mania in Korea is 800Hz.
I'd like to know your experience and recommendation.
Any comments will be helpful.
Thanks in advance.
- --
J A N G W O N S U H
Ph.D. course, Cognitive Systems Group. AI Lab.
CSD. KAIST 373-1, Kusong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Taejon #305-701 KOREA
mailto: suh@aim.kaist.ac.kr http://aim.kaist.ac.kr/~suh/welcome.html
=========================================================================
From: Scott Grammer <gesic@cdc.net>
Subject: Re: Question about Altec 414A + 802D
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 09:09:36 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n102
Jang Won Suh wrote:
>
> Hello, Joes,
>
> I've read several excellent articles about horn system on this list.
> It fired me to plan my own horn system.
> (Now I'm using PM-610 full range with 6C33C-B SE amp)
>
> I have a pair of Altec 802D, and have ordered a pair of 414 - 16A.
> Tweeter will be considered after setting up these two units.
>
> Because my listening room is small, pettie Onken enclosure is
> my choice for the bass. (as far as I know... any others?)
>
> For high frequency region, I'm planning to use wood horn.
> But, it's very hard to decide the cross-over point.
> I was told about near 2000Hz as Altec 601 coax.
> An article in Sound Practices recommends 500Hz as 288 driver.
> The typical cross-over point of Altec-mania in Korea is 800Hz.
> I'd like to know your experience and recommendation.
>
> Any comments will be helpful.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> J A N G W O N S U H
> Ph.D. course, Cognitive Systems Group. AI Lab.
> CSD. KAIST 373-1, Kusong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Taejon #305-701 KOREA
> mailto: suh@aim.kaist.ac.kr http://aim.kaist.ac.kr/~suh/welcome.html
Jang:
I was mistaken in my earlier post about the 601 crossover. It occurs at
3kHz. My apologies.
S.G.
- --
"To save every cog and wheel is the first
precaution of intelligent tinkering." -Aldo Leopold.
Check out TubeDude's Webpage of Vacuum Tube Lore!
http://www.cdc.net/~gesic
=========================================================================
From: An-shyang Chu <achu@sandia.gov>
Subject: question about Blues Master
Date: 08 Apr 1998 08:37:54 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n247
Hi Doc.B, Lynn, and Joes,
Was looking at the Valve article about the Blues Master last night and noticed
something that I con not figure out. In reducing the hum, Doc/Lynn suggested
using a shield over the filament wires (of the VV32B) and tie that to the center
tap and THEN to the ground? Does this just short the cathode/filament to the
ground and lose the bias. I can see this working for an IDH tube or a fix
biased DH tube, but in a cathode biased DH tube? Am I missing something??
hopper
p.s. in addition, this should not work for the Blues Master since the VV32B is
used in the DC coupled with the extra voltage on the cathode running to the C4S
input/driver stage anyway (as shown in the diagram).
p.p.s. Doc. how does 396A/5670 work out for you??
=========================================================================
From: "Bottlehead" <Bottlehead@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: question about Blues Master
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:04:45 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n248
> Hi Doc.B, Lynn, and Joes,
>
> Was looking at the Valve article about the Blues Master last night and
noticed
> something that I con not figure out. In reducing the hum, Doc/Lynn
sugge