Go to WAJ on AUDIO: Home (Or click on site-title above).
LETTERS TO AN AUDIOPHILE
In this segment, I propose to present some of my emails mainly to an audiophile acquaintance I’d met on the ‘net as he initially contacted me to assert his affinity for my writings and general outlook on hifi, which coincided with his own as illustrated in the system he cited.
Although permission was given to use his emails, I thought it best just to use my own mails in this endeavour, for the most part, interspersed with segments from his emails. However, to set the tone, I’ll start out in this segment with copies of the emails he initially sent me when first contact was made. Below also is a shortened version of his description/review of his own system, which he reviews more fully elsewhere on this site. And then we’ll continue from there.
Both my audio-system and his (including our secondary systems too) will go through mild to major changes during the course of this correspondence. Also, various possibilities and other audio-related issues will be discussed. And it is hoped that the reader will be able to garner a few tips, items of interest, or useful ideas from these discussions.
Incidentally, at one stage, my acquaintance decided to try clones of speakers I’d perennially advocated in my articles at my hifi site and in my banter with him. And now he ‘blames’ me for the fact that these speakers have now replaced his original long-standing pair and has caused almost everyone who’s heard his new system to claim that it’s the best they’ve ever heard, and certainly one of the very best systems in the world.
Moreover, though most of my emails are to the cited individual, I'll also be incorporating emails to one or two other hifi correspondents (mostly individuals who've reported great results after heeding advice and recommendations espoused at this site). And I may also include a few postings I'd made on a few of my rare visits to some audio-discussion forums.
Not everyone (including me) will have the space or the fiscal means to build some of the ultimate ‘no-holds-barred’ systems I sometimes advocate, but the happy fact is that performance very close to the ultimate level (up to nine-tenths – and certainly within the same ‘ultimate’ ballpark) can be obtained with slightly more moderate and much less ‘humongous’ systems.
But this thread is not just about speaker-systems; it also includes discussions on turntables, cartridges, tonearms, the state of recordings, amps, pre-amps, analogue vs digital sources, reel to reel tapes, mastertape, the audio-press, and many other issues. And since each email may contain two or three (or more) of each topic, it’s impossible separate said mails into different categories, as even mails mostly on TTs, for instance, will perhaps also feature remarks on speakers and other issues. Nevertheless, aside from the headings used for the original mails, I’ll sometimes also include a hint of the subject-matter (e.g. speakers, tonearms, recordings) where possible.
Among other things, and in keeping with this site's philosophy of advocating the best for less, it's inevitable that info on giant-killing components will be garnered from some of the emails pasted below, as info is shared following several tests and experiments. For instance, there are $50 tonearms which rival the performance of $1000 examples, $60 turntables which rival $2000 units (with the simple addition of an arm) simple and affordable speaker-systems which mercilessly outperform mega-buck systems - and the same applies to amps, CD-Ps and other items too.
Pictures of my own system are here – i.e. as it WAS up to the time this thread was started: http://wajonaudio.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=13058663
And a description of my system as it WAS for several years and as at the start of the thread is here: http://wajonaudiosv.weebly.com/system-building-for-lifelike-sound-my-system-s-v.html
Although permission was given to use his emails, I thought it best just to use my own mails in this endeavour, for the most part, interspersed with segments from his emails. However, to set the tone, I’ll start out in this segment with copies of the emails he initially sent me when first contact was made. Below also is a shortened version of his description/review of his own system, which he reviews more fully elsewhere on this site. And then we’ll continue from there.
Both my audio-system and his (including our secondary systems too) will go through mild to major changes during the course of this correspondence. Also, various possibilities and other audio-related issues will be discussed. And it is hoped that the reader will be able to garner a few tips, items of interest, or useful ideas from these discussions.
Incidentally, at one stage, my acquaintance decided to try clones of speakers I’d perennially advocated in my articles at my hifi site and in my banter with him. And now he ‘blames’ me for the fact that these speakers have now replaced his original long-standing pair and has caused almost everyone who’s heard his new system to claim that it’s the best they’ve ever heard, and certainly one of the very best systems in the world.
Moreover, though most of my emails are to the cited individual, I'll also be incorporating emails to one or two other hifi correspondents (mostly individuals who've reported great results after heeding advice and recommendations espoused at this site). And I may also include a few postings I'd made on a few of my rare visits to some audio-discussion forums.
Not everyone (including me) will have the space or the fiscal means to build some of the ultimate ‘no-holds-barred’ systems I sometimes advocate, but the happy fact is that performance very close to the ultimate level (up to nine-tenths – and certainly within the same ‘ultimate’ ballpark) can be obtained with slightly more moderate and much less ‘humongous’ systems.
But this thread is not just about speaker-systems; it also includes discussions on turntables, cartridges, tonearms, the state of recordings, amps, pre-amps, analogue vs digital sources, reel to reel tapes, mastertape, the audio-press, and many other issues. And since each email may contain two or three (or more) of each topic, it’s impossible separate said mails into different categories, as even mails mostly on TTs, for instance, will perhaps also feature remarks on speakers and other issues. Nevertheless, aside from the headings used for the original mails, I’ll sometimes also include a hint of the subject-matter (e.g. speakers, tonearms, recordings) where possible.
Among other things, and in keeping with this site's philosophy of advocating the best for less, it's inevitable that info on giant-killing components will be garnered from some of the emails pasted below, as info is shared following several tests and experiments. For instance, there are $50 tonearms which rival the performance of $1000 examples, $60 turntables which rival $2000 units (with the simple addition of an arm) simple and affordable speaker-systems which mercilessly outperform mega-buck systems - and the same applies to amps, CD-Ps and other items too.
Pictures of my own system are here – i.e. as it WAS up to the time this thread was started: http://wajonaudio.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=13058663
And a description of my system as it WAS for several years and as at the start of the thread is here: http://wajonaudiosv.weebly.com/system-building-for-lifelike-sound-my-system-s-v.html
Main reference-system - WAJ on AUDIO: First picture - clockwise from bottom; passive front-end xover and EQ for sub-woofers, Sherwood AM 7040 power-amp for subs, UREI 6150 power-amp for full-range towers, Audio-Research LS3 pre-amp, Sony 610ES CD-player, Sony HiFi-VCR, MKII Thorens TD125/SME-3009II TT, Linn Sondek/Ittok TT, E.A.R. 834P phono pre-amp, Dell D600 laptop, DVD player, Kenwood tuner, ReVox A-77 2-track 15 ips reel to reel machine. Second picture; 2 DIY full-range high-efficiency speaker towers each with Altec 802/811 mid/high horn, 7" mid-woofer from Yamaha NS10 studio-monitor, 2 KLH 12" mid-woofers (with two of the three mid-woofers per side run xover-less). Sub-woofers; Two 5' X 2.75' custom-cabs each with one Goodmans Audiom 18" woofer.
[Letters to an Audiophile: Batch # 1] First Contact: Message from reader January 29, year-1 50 plus years of hi-fi. Biased towards horns and valves (tubes) but use mainly a semi-digital amp at the moment. I agree totally with your comments about realism in reproducing music and how to achieve it. I also am a fervent DIY'er and a great deal of my equipment has been self made. The picture of part of my speaker system is and adaption of the Tannoys, but with 2 X 15" dual concentrics and much heavier cabinet walls coupled with additional drivers to add to the mids and treble plus a super tweeter. Sub woofer is just as extreme. First reply from WAJ on AUDIO January 29 Hi, Welcome to WAJ on AUDIO, and thanks for joining. It's encouraging to know you agree with my views on sonic-realism, and on the best ways of approaching it. Needless to say, I'm fascinated by your system - or what I've seen and heard of it, thus far. I wish you had the time to elaborate on its make-up, and on its sound. Being somewhat familiar with 'lesser' Tannoys, I'm sure yours must be totally awesome. Not even the great Westminster Royal should be able to compete with yours. And did you say they're sub-woofed? (More folded-horns?) My Gosh, man - are you serious? Some of us would rather be reading about a system such as yours, than to see another rave about Wilson/Krell, and the like, which the popular mainstream audio mags so delight in forcing upon us. It's a travesty that they promote these while they exclude the much better systems (as yours is - I'm absolutely sure). Enjoy the music! WAJ. From reader: The issue of a review & etc Hi, The more of your website I see, the more I wish I had seen it years ago. I feel as though my own position in hifi has been vindicated. I suppose like most people, I have my own foibles, likes and dislikes and probably wobbly thinking. One of my pet hates revolves around bad recordings and more especially those ones that seem to be going down the same route as the Stereophile type magazines.... Hi, If you want me to I will write up my entire and rather mad system with pictures..... ....Music is the end and very often lost to technology I think, and to reproduce it is one of the hardest things to do. Regards. From me:The issue of a review 7:19 PM on February 1 Hello, The review you propose sounds like a great idea. I’d be very interested in your awesome system, and how it came about. If you do write it up, please don't forget to elaborate on the sound of it, especially compared to those with the 'best' conventional types of speakers. In other words, how realistic are the Tannoys, compared to conventional types? And what sonic features (dynamism, tone, etc) make them as realistic as I'm sure they are. (i.e. if this is not too much to ask). I'm sure your sub-woofed Tannoys would shame something like an X-2, for instance, so please let me know if I'm right. Cheers, WAJ. From reader: Review sent & etc Hi, Attached is a rar file with an article on my system in html. If you want to edit it I have no problem with that. I have listened to many systems over the years most of them either friends or friends of friends and I need to be a bit polite even if their whole approach runs at a right angle to mine. I do like your approach to audio and it’s a pity that we live around the world from one another. Here everything in audio is very expensive so consequently the high end stuff is for the more wealthy who are more than a bit snobbish. The Westminster Royal I listened to twice, once in the home of the original purchaser and subsequently to the person he sold it to. As both of them buy and sell equipment trying all the time always wanting something more..... Anyway hope you like the article. Regards Reader's Review: Double-Tannoy Audio-System (Shortened) .First a bit of background. I have been a HiFi nut for more than 45 years. First amp was a mono Geloso valve amp which destroyed a Phillips 12” speaker the first time I tried it. Amps over the years included Leak, Quad, Radford, Pioneer and absolutely terrible transistor home brew. Speakers were Goodmans Axiom's 12” which I used until the Tannoy bug bit around 10 years ago. Cabinets for the Goodmans included everything from Bass Reflex to concrete sewer pipes (NOT pre-used) to replicas of the Decca Horn cabinet amongst others. I still own a pristine pair of Goodman Tri-axiom speakers although I doubt if my son who is using them will ever give them back. The out-building which houses my listening-room has a ceiling that overall slopes on the short side and steps up from 9' to 18' on the long. The listening area is almost square at 26' with a solid partitioned of space for working in. All the funny angles seem to help with the acoustics. Length Width Area Ceiling Volume 50' 26' 1,300sq' ave 15' 20,000sq' In trying to reproduce as faithfully as possible a musical event, all sorts of compromises, out of necessity, have to be made. The biggest of these surely is the size of the room one has to work with along with its concomitant shape. I have seen remarked that as audiophiles get older, the music they listen to changes, the end being chamber music. I wonder how much room size limits most of us. Music to my mind consists of a number of components. Pitch, timbre, attack, dynamics, rhythm and melody. A good hifi should be able to reproduce all of these things. How well the system does this, defines the overall success of the effort. There are things that the audiophile finds important also such as the sound stage, front to back and side to side placement of the instruments and also information on the acoustics of the venue but these should be of lesser importance. However, more and more, these attributes have become the prime. Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale demonstrated years ago that reproducing actual live music in the Royal Festival Hall, London and Carnegie Hall, New York was viable. Both of these venues seat upwards of two thousand people yet with basic amplification, some 20 watts per speaker supplied by Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame and a couple of 12" speakers in rudimentary cabinets Briggs was able to, not only reproduce the live orchestra, but to do so in such a way as to demonstrate that there was very little if any perceived difference in the live to reproduced sound. The organ of the Festival Hall gave him more trouble, mainly in the deep bass. The system described below is the result of an evolutionary process which has been going on for over 50 years. In part I have been lucky by being at the right place at the proverbial right time, for some of my equipment I would not have been able to afford otherwise. The detail in a musical performance to a great extent depends on how far you are from the action and many recordings are unnatural in their presence or other odd features. A prime example is the von Karajan/Cochereau DGG recording of the Saint-Saens Symphony No. 3, Organ. It starts, in the very dry acoustic of the Berlin Symphony Concert Hall, with no reverberation at all, just as von Karajan liked it and it sounds wonderful. The second part of the first movement is a bit odd with more air. The first part of second movement is back to normal. Then comes the famous organ entry, along with the eight second reverb of Notre-Dame Cathedral. From no reverberation to 8 seconds! One bar to the next. Another example is a recording of a trumpeter with a burble in the softer sounds (usual cause of burble is false teeth) in a Brass Band. In real life this would not be apparent as no one listens to a band up close. I have heard this phenomenon when recording band music and the cure is to move the microphones back as it is not a genuine feature of brass sound. Only that the poor sod playing has false teeth. Another of the more favorite "details" that seem to be wanted is the sound a hiss a bow makes on the strings of a violin or any string instrument. In a close miked solo I would accept it but not in a full orchestra. Assuming one sits in the front row maybe some bowing noise from the string sections can be heard but that hiss disappears as soon as there are other sounds from the orchestra. Recordings that are mixed down from multiple mikes suffer from these noises which are from my point of view, an aberration. The rationale behind the comments on recordings I have made and will make, in part define what I want my system to do for me, reproduction wise. For nearly forty years I used 12" Goodman speakers in rear horn loaded cabinets with separate horns for treble and midrange. The Goodman were around 100dB @ 1 watt which is easy to match with the normal pressure loaded mid and treble horns but there was always something not quite right. : Decca Horns face into the corner Altec Horn with HF Driver Tannoy Autograph Most audiophile systems have sub-woofers to go down low but very, very few have meaningful output below 20Hz. Think of it from this point. The bottom Open Wood 32' C pipe in Liverpool Cathedral is 32' tall and more than three foot wide in it's mouth with a quarter inch gap for air to flow through at a pressure of 4.5" of water. The quantity of air shifted through the pipe past the languid is immense and no little sub-woofer is going to cut it. So what will? Firstly the room needs to be big, a half wavelength at 16Hz is around 35'. Secondly to move large amounts of air large cones are necessary. Tuned cabinets at these frequencies are difficult because when you get the fundamental right the partials or harmonics are at the wrong volume. The port size is the same as an A3 piece of paper and is "out of tune" for the top 5 notes of the octave. My sub-woofer solution is a tube 25" X 25" square (is around 580 sq inches) and 20' long. This is closed at one end and has 4 X 18" drivers mounted. The other end has the best part of a roll of Dacron stuffed in it. The speakers are driven by a 350 watt mosfet amp. The speakers are rated at 96db/watt so possibly they will come up to 99dB as they are wired series / parallel. Details of the system; components/rack & speakers: Triode monoblocks 300B valves in parallel or TacT SDAI 2175 Semi Digital. Generic 350 watt mosfet for sub-woofer. CD Jolida CD100, valve output. Otari MX-5050 reel to reel tape deck. EMT 948 turntable Jolida JD 9 phono stage Blue Angel Mantis cartridge. Squeezebox Touch and 1 TByte hard drive driven directly from Squeezebox. DIY Ultrasonic record cleaner with separate rinse and vacuum unit. Double Tannoy Autograph rear loaded horns. 2 X 15" Dual Concentric drivers per side. Ribbon Tweeter, Mid Range and Super Tweeters. All interconnecting cables are from 9999 Silver wire 0.7mm thick. One set as per Alpha Core Goetz Silver ribbon cables, Teflon dielectric. All speaker internal wiring from the same Silver wire. Main speaker cable. Twin core. 360 strands per core. OFC when new. Now 30 years old. Mains. The room has a 3 phase supply and other than arranging that the air conditioner and lighting were on different phases and building a bus bar system to connect to, no other steps were taken. None of the equipment has anything fancy in the way of supply leads. A small comment on interconnects. Anyone perusing information on resistance in wires will soon conclude that there is no magic material to be had. The metal with the least resistance normally available is Silver and with that in mind I acquired some. I wanted to try the Goetz type and rolled down some of the wire to thin ribbons (as per the details on the Alpha Core website) and put together a 1 meter pair. They do sound "different" from more conventionally constructed types but this "difference" is probably due to the extra capacitance which is part of the construction. I just love the name for the special insulating coating of the cables. A "Polymer of Terephthalate" or more correctly Polyethylene Terephthalate. Which is what plastic milk bottles are made from. Not very uplifting is it? And I mean $$$$ to be uplifted from my pocket. How does it all sound? I place great emphasis on a hifi being able to reproduce the actual sound of something. If a well recorded cymbal is struck it sounds real, likewise a triangle. Drums are also a severe test for a system as they have everything from attack to huge harmonic range to an equally large dynamic rage. The speakers reproduce this faithfully even huge orchestral crescendos such as found in the Manfred Symphony. Something I have not mentioned is that apart from there being two 15" drivers per side and horn loaded, each driver has a separate, pressure loaded, high frequency horn driver in it. For non Tannoy types this is the basis of the Dual Concentric Tannoy and it is every bit as good as the Altec version. Tannoy use the main cone as an extension of the HF horn. For what it's worth my take is that only the horn loading of the Tannoys gives them the speed to keep up with the ribbons. The size of the sound stage (yet another miserable term) is very big with the very large speaker cabinets set 24' apart. The listening position being 20' back. Again recordings differ, but using a good one for example, an old Decca LP with the d'Oyly Carte Opera Company's performance of the Mikado, and you are there. In corpus. Is it surprising that the Mercury recordings are so prized? Another one. An equally old recording of Ella Fitzgerald and the woman is standing between the speakers in my room. Level setting is paramount when listening for this sort of thing and what works for one track may not work for another I find. Many years ago I recorded a session with my friend playing a Hammond M100 through a PR 40 Tone Cabinet and a drummer (in a different room, the door being the volume control for the drummer) and the sound of the M100 comes through. To anyone who has played Hammonds they are all different sounding, model to model. Playing the recording back the M100 sounds as if it were in the room and this surely is another indication that the system is near right as could be. As to how the Tannoys sound as compared to other speakers presents me with a problem as nothing I have ever heard comes even close other than the Tannoy Westminster Royals and those only in gross, certainly not in detail. The first Tannoy Kingdom is not even in the same class. If I compare the good parts, the mid range, of stacked Quad Electrostatic ESL-57 even then the Tannoys are better. Please don't mention Martin Logan, or the big Apogee ribbon speakers as both of them are so crippled in parts, again the lower mid range, that overall they are of no interest to me. Neither of those have anywhere near enough punch for true reproduction of brass, for example, never mind any serious orchestral work at more or less realistic volume. I have yet to hear someone with electrostatic speakers turn them up on any source material - to me they are high priced barbecue grids. There have been ONLY other two speaker systems I have ever heard that had the detail, dynamic response, tonality and clarity that I want. The one was a mono system with an Altec version of the Dual Concentric. The other was a very large Bozak system. And the Bozak was so long ago there may be colouration in my memory. I have never heard Wilson speakers but audio type friends have said the Double Tannoys are better but, again, all of this is subjective. I do know that Japenese Kondo Drums played loud sound real, as does a kick drum or a timpani. There is a recording, Cantate Domino, which seems to be loved by some, that has been so dumbed down by the engineers that for people to actually like it they would have to play it on an equally dumbed down system. What price High End Audio? And don't get me started on Reference Recordings either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reader's serious subwoofer-system: Four 18" woofers in a twenty-foot cab - awesome - supplying deep-bass for a pair of high-efficiency double 15" speakers (and tweeters) in back-loaded horn cabs for the range above 30 hz..
Double Tannoy: A World-Class System / The Lack of Low-Midrange / & Mutilated Recordings
Hello, Wow, what a review. It's fantastic. And so is the system. (Am I right in assuming that the 300Bs power only the ribbons? Since you mentioned 'mid, treble and super-tweeter' ribbons, I wondered how they were implemented/combined with the centre-tweeters of the Tannoys - or not) Your thoughts on recordings are also appreciated. I do regret to say I can't be of much assistance regarding your digital queries, though. (And yep, I did notice that Otari and the magnificent EMT - been thinkin' of ditching my antiquated Linn for a 'new' Lenco, miself). Aside from the fact that I see you as the teacher (and I; the student) on these matters, I must admit that digital has never been very high on my priority-list - so sorry about that. I, therefore, defer to your greater years, your greater experience, and to your greater knowledge and expertise, on these matters. I had been impressed by the performance of a Pro-Tools M-Box operating as a DAC, in the past (not in my own system). But now it seems I need to thank you for the headz-up on the Behringer. Btw, did you see this? http://www.lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/behringer/Behringer.html OK, I admit to being a bit old-fashioned myself – stuck in my ways with the likes of turntables and CP-Ps, toobs and transistors. Yes, they still remain my preference. But I also see nothing wrong with accepting the likes of T-Amps, digital music-servers and other digital sources and devices, including DSP or room-correcting equalization. The prominence of some of these in such an outstanding system as yours is evidence enough for us die-hards indicating that this is the wave of the future and perfectly capable of impeccable sound, today. Been toying with investigating T-Amps and satellite-radio (or even a Bose Wave-Radio) at Amazon for a small secondary system in a small room for some time now. Whether I take that route, or some other alternative, remains to be seen. But another small system is definitely in my plans. I'm not too sure you'd want to hear my thoughts on recordings, in general. Oh yes, there are many great recordings but, generally, I hate the overzealous emphasis on close-mic'ing, and I hate what it does to 'potential' realism. Only Superman, I suppose, would be able to place his ears at all the instruments in a band, simultaneously - the way so many recordings are mic'd - it's a shame. I also hate the engineers' practice of 'sweetening' this and 'sweetening' that and, generally, over-using and abusing every single processor in the studio - un-necessarily, and just because they're there. And I especially HATE what engineers do with the dynamic-range of music - the un-necessaryly drastic compression of dynamic-range is rife. (I tend to prefer the raw 'take', rather than the 'final mix' - what they do to the music at the latter stage of the 'mixing-process' would be more appropriate in a butchery; a slaughter-house - it's sickening) I've been toying with a theory, recently: We all know that a distant listening-position, at a concert, affords less detail. To counter some of the detailed 'evils' of close-mic'ing, perhaps a system deliberately tuned to be less detailed would actually be MORE like the real thing - provided its overall reproduction is reasonably accurate. Indeed, perhaps such a system would, in some ways, be better and more realistic than having a detailed one which highlights every annoying act of butchery performed in studio. As I said, it's just a theory, for now but, in truth, I happen to like live music, from a distance - I'm sure I'd be happy with a system which accurately portrays music in a lifelike and realistic manner, similar to that encountered in-concert, from the distant-perspective. Nevertheless, based on my passing knowledge of Tannoys, especially, and of the capabilities of the accompanying components, in general terms, I wouldn't hesitate, for a moment, to include your system in any theoretical list of mine, regarding the world's best systems, that I'm aware of - at least; potentially. Though I've never heard it, obviously, I'm absolutely sure that such components, competently optimized, WILL render state of the art performance. Needless to say, your demonstrated level of competence and knowledge is enough to assure the astute that these competent components WILL be competently optimized. The room, and the size of it, etc, also constitute a factor, especially with regard to potential bass-reproduction. In fact, though I may not be so bold, I'm seriously thinking of introducing it as one of the world's great systems - for real! Thanks for sharing. Kindest regards, WAJ. P.S. By the way, you mentioned; "Please don't mention Martin Logan, or the big Appogee ribbon speakers as both of them are so crippled in parts, again the lower mid range that overall they are of no interest to me. Neither of those have anywhere near enough punch for true reproduction of brass, for example, never mind any serious orchestral work at more or less realistic volume..." . This lack of lower-midrange competence/realism has been my pet-gripe regarding not just planars but, also, virtually all modern small-coned speaker-systems, including some of their 'very-best'. No small-coned system I've ever heard displays the realistic lower-mids weight, authority, and power (even at low volume) demonstrated by the large-cones of the likes of Altec, Tannoy, Bozak, and JBL, etc,(including even Henry Kloss' 'Boston-Bland' designs). To me the magnitude of the superiority of the latter types, Tannoys et al, over the conventional small-coned types is utterly ridiculous. So ridiculous that one wonders why people bother with the puny pretenders at all. In fact, the difference is so ridiculous, to me, that I sometimes wonder if I may be wrong - I simply can't believe that the majority of the world's audiophiles fail to recognize the same thing - so I second-guess myself. If it's not too much trouble, could you please elaborate on your experience/encounters with these conventional small-coned systems, compared to the likes of Goodmans and Tannoy? Oh, and I take this as a complement; "The more of your website I see, the more I wish I had seen it years ago. I feel as though my own position in hifi has been vindicated..." Thanks! And I too feel vindicated whenever one as knowledgable as yourself finds favour with some of the points I've made. However, with regard to seeing the site years ago, I'm afraid WAJ on AUDIO only came on-line since 2010. And I'm still learning too, from audiophiles such as you. Thanks again. Email from reader: Radical Ideas, ReVox, Recordings, Turntables, Speakers Sent: Thursday, February 7, 8:45 AM Subject: RE: Double Tannoy Hi WAJ, Thanks for your email and the very nice comments. I feel just a bit overwhelmed! When I started the write up I mentioned my best friend who kicked my ideas about hifi and music into shape. That I was well and truly brainwashed can be borne out by my dislike of Mozart's music which is another carry over from him. At one time between us we owned seven electronic organs, one of which was a totally original M3 of 1948 vintage. Another was a Content digital organ using sampled sounds. Between us we re-built a Estey harmonium (pump organ) which was to be the console for a small pipe organ we started to construct. When he died pretty unexpectedly from cancer the ranks of pipes we had built and the electronic organs were given to other people along with all his hifi equipment (all of the above had been left to me). His hifi was simple, a Leak TL12, Garrard 301 turntable with SME tone arm, a Garrard GC8!!! cartridge and a ancient Goodmans 12” speaker in a bass reflex cabinet. He also owned and Akai M9 and Ferrograph reel to reel tape decks. I had given him a CD player and portable TV which were kept, in their original boxes, in a cupboard and dragged out for special occasions only. I mention this to illustrate that I am a product of an eccentric mind. Another friend, a concert pianist, also contributed to my musical (how it actually sounds) education. That friend still owns an American 9' Steinway Concert Grand piano along with other lessor pianos. This is where my dislike of Revox tape decks stems from. He had bought a new A77 which spent more time in the repair shop than in his studio. I remember a time when he had been trying to make a demo recording to send to the UK he phoned me to come and help him as he was not getting the result he wanted. After messing around for an hour I fetched my Akai M9, did the recording which was duly sent to the UK and a Concert tour resulted. Many years later I recorded a Mass and Organ Recital in the Anglican Cathedral in Kimberley, using an Revox B77 belonging to the doyen of organ builders here. Again there were problems with what was supposedly a good machine. At one point I bought two Revox B36 machines and had one re-built by the agents, I ended up giving them away as I could never get a satisfactory result from them either. Now I have an Otari 5050 which works! I can probably babble on for pages on microphones etc. but that's what it would be, babble. I think there are a couple of points here somewhere … hopefully. One of which is that I agree with you on close miked recordings. The number of recordings that have a stereo effect on a piano are legion. Sitting on the Steinway's bench you can hear which sides the bass and treble is on, just. Stand away, even a couple of feet and that effect disappears. Likewise a band. Playing in a Brass Band you can hear who is playing the wrong note, if he is behind you. Another of my pet aversions and I've got lots of them is stereo pipe organs. Standing in front of a large organ, forget it. Sit on the bench of a small organ and provided you play one note you just might be able to locate it. When tuning a organ you first locate the rank, then have your assistant play middle C until by guess and by sticking your finger over mouths of pipes locate the one that is sounding and you work from there. Stereo my foot! I wonder how many of these fool reviewers know that all piano's have multiple strings per note in the treble. And that if you are close to the thing the tuning is always very slightly out – per note and especially at the top of the range. So much for the “resolving power” of high end equipment and close miking. Turntables. Years ago I owned a Lenco L75 which rumbled like all hell. Then a Thorens TD124 which I liked very much. Somewhere along the line I was given a Toshiba turntable with a photo-coupled cartridge and reams of electronics in it. The cartridge was rubbish, the turntable was very good. Then CD's came along and I committed the worst sort of heresy, I sold all my records and the turntable and converted to CD. Despite my friend telling what an idiot I was. Got back into LP's in 1998 when I visited the UK and the violin maker. He sold me a Linn Sondek LP12 with the Valhalla upgrade to the power supply. We boxed it up in plywood and posted it back home. Not bad but as you say in the States, no cigar. Half the time the thing needed help to start. So I built my own. Motor and external flywheel with encoder for speed control from a 3M tape Deck, the spindle was instead of the usual 2” long thing in a bush, 10” long and 7/8” thick. All running in and on Vesconite. The housing was stainless steel and oil filled. The platter was from the bottom, 3/4” Stainless Steel from a Mitchel Orbe, then 1/4” glass on rubber tips, another 1/4” glass on rubber and finally 1/2” glass with the record spindle only going through the ½” glass. Topped by a clamp also from the 3M deck which had fitted a collet chuck. LP rested directly on the glass. Tone Arm was a very, very good Eminent Technology linear tracking arm. The material some of the ET arm is made from is terrible but I passed it on to another friend and he re-made bits of it from Aluminium. I have never met this other friend but we speak on the phone most weeks, usually for an hour or so and this for the last 15 years. I have an expensive MC cartridge of his which is currently back with him for an upgrade. It is the finest cartridge that I have heard. Then I got the EMT and the rest of the world can go to hell. It goes with me into my box. From 0 to 33 in 0.2 of a second and I can't wait until my MC gets back! Slumming with a cheap Audio Technica for now. Built to last and as a “broadcast” turntable I think the term 24/7 was invented for it. I think your idea of dumbing down high end systems so that they can become musical (sorry I know you don't like the term) would be a good idea only the audiophile community is interested in bits and pieces, not music. If you have only been in audio for a few years, heaven help us in a few more. Your summary of what is lacking is spot on. The current trend of inefficient loudspeakers, no matter how well they have been made, can not do things like dynamics, clarity and even response. Nor can the small “monkey coffins” (patent and credits to Harvey Rosenberg for the term) on stands. Some of the best sound I have heard was in an old cinema near in my home town 50 years ago. This was a single 36” Pope (Phillips) speaker driven by a 20 watt EL34 valved amplifier. The cabinet was a 15” cube – in truth a room behind the screen. My speakers are all driven by the TacT or the Triodes, not bi-amped. Truth is I find the Triodes too mellow and the bass too uncontrolled so I very seldom connect them up any more. The booklet I sent “Five Speakers” you may not have seen. I have been down the concrete coloum route, with 8' concrete sewer pipes (new!) and 24” diameter with the Goodmans Axioms at the top and mid range 8” Goodmans and tweeters mounted on a shelf above. The whole thing standing on bricks. No paint, no covering. In our sitting room. I don't think my wife even noticed them – horsey type. They needed internal damping which I never got round to as I was diverted by the prospect of the Decca Horns. To anyone with efficient drivers this must rate as one of the best cabinets ever. I used 1 1/4” wood brandering on all the joints with glue and final silicone bead inside. If memory serves over 100 1 1/2” wood screws per cabinet as well. It's very important not to stress any panel lest it resonates. No damping at all and in my case 21” out from a corner. Short of a full blown horn system, dynamics like you have never heard. On my Radford 25 watt amp I never lifted the volume control above two and a half. Enough for now, time to go home. Regards [This email and all the rest will be from WAJ on AUDIO, unless otherwise specified] A brief look at the cause of modern speakers’ problems
Hi, First, let me hasten to clarify a point: You mentioned; " If you have only been in audio for a few years, heaven help us in a few more. Your summary of what is lacking is spot on. The current trend of inefficient loudspeakers, no matter how well they have been made, can not do things like dynamics, clarity and even response. Nor can the small “monkey coffins” (patent and credits to Harvey Rosenberg for the term) on stands." Actually, I've been in audio since I was 10 (i.e. ever-since receiving my first 'record-player', as a birthday-present - that's when the bug bit) and, now, I'm a member of the 50s-club. Yep, I been at it for a while, spending too many of those years with small-coned speakers, being led by the audio-magz down the same wrong path I'm warning others against, now. (The irony is; I was also intimately involved with the better principles of mobile DJ pro-sound systems, having also owned and operated one, in various iterations, over most of those years). I guess the slight mix-up came about when I mentioned that the site, WAJ on AUDIO, only came on-line since around 2010. It's good to see you agree with my assessment of what's lacking in hi-fi, today. With the application of 20/20 hindsight, it's patently obvious what the problems are, in modern systems. After all, if you omit dynamism, as you mentioned, and if you omit lower-midrange tone, both of which modern speakers are guilty of, then you virtually guarantee a patent lack of realism. And emphasizing detail and acute soundstaging, as the 'best' of these speakers do, cannot compensate for this lack of realism, in fact it exacerbates the problem. Thanks for the booklet with those speaker-plans. It's a nice addition to my small collection, just in case I need to utilize one of these some time in the future. I'll admit to being slightly disappointed not to see the Double-Tannoys' plans included, but I'd fully understand if you prefer to keep those close to your chest, so to speak. It's funny that I don't seem to have the problems you found with the ReVox A77. Who knows? Perhaps it's because I don't utilize such a machine as much, and in as many ways, as you do. For instance, though I may get around to it some day, I really don't do much live taping - certainly nothing serious. Perhaps this is mostly because of a lack of convenience, and a lack of 'serious' mikes, at the moment. Cheers. WAJ. Audiophiles (including me) brainwashed by mainstream audio-mags
Hi, Sorry about the delay in my response. I eventually found your last two e-mails in 'spam'. Thanks for the plans. And the accounts of your exploits with static and record-cleaning are quite interesting, as usual. Oh yeah, having recently entered the 50s-zone, I prefer to see myself as approaching the hill - certainly not over it. I'm sure you'd be amused at the way some of us try to push-back that 'hill', instead of admitting to climbing it. Yep! I consider myself to be still on the approach. (A recent diagnosis of 'early-stage emphysema', a couple weeks ago, doesn't help with this outlook, though - but at least I'm 'lucky' to be 'early-stage, I'm told). I'm aiming to have that review posted by the coming week, along with the thread of our correspondence, to date. And since you said; " It's very nice to have someone to talk to about hifi that has the same outlook." I have to admit; same here. It's very refreshing to discuss high-fidelity without having to endure references to 'tastes & preferences', implying that fidelity can be tailored to tastes. It's really amazing how much the mainstream mags have brain-washed gullible 'audiophiles'. One fella actually informed me that sonic realism was different for everyone, and that his 'realism' is likely different from my 'realism'. So, then, I guess realism is no longer absolute - according to the teachings of these mags. It's frightening how powerful these mags are. And it's even more frightening how much they abuse this power. Consider the Linn Sondek, for instance - certainly a good tt but, as you say, no cigar, compared to the likes of an EMT. Yet, years ago, when the mags said the Linn was the best thing since sliced-bread, many abandoned EMTs, Empires, 301s and 401s, 124s, and Lencos (all of which are better than the Linn) to jump on the Linn band-wagon (Granted; some need to be modified to display their best - but they're also better than many mega-buck tts the same mags also told us were the ultimate). But even this pales against the CD fiasco. How many of us put aside great tts (Thorens 125, in my case) to ride that CD-bandwagon, at these mags' behest? (Both my hands are raised). Forgive me if I neglect to elaborate on the lies they spew about modern speakers, compared to those like yours, and even your former Goodmans Axioms. I'm particularly bitter about this topic since I allowed myself to be led astray by these mags, even though I should really have known better, considering my involvement with high-efficiency pro-sound systems at the time. Perhaps I should leave it at that. (At least you had the sense to use 12" Goodmans in horns, etc). I was stupid enough to endure BC-1s at home (and in my car, after being disillusioned - long story) for much too long (tho grossly disappointed, in comparisons with the live sound) simply because the mags said there's nothing really much better out there (and hearing the others that were touted, I agreed). But this is also while I was involved, on a semi-pro level, with the likes of Altec, Goodmans (two 18s of which I still have) and (Pro) Celestion - much better, in hindsight. Yet I refused to embrace these for domestic purposes, since the mags claimed they were not worthy. How stupid can one be? And now you know the source of my bitterness, concerning these despicable mainstream audio-mags and small-coned speakers, in general. Thanks for the listening ear (perhaps this is 'therapeutic', after all - talkin' 'bout issues). Cheers WAJ. The relevance of tweaks, exotic cables, and foo-foo dust
Hello, Sound Practices magazine? No, never subscribed - that was a late discovery for me. Keep in mind that, though I've been in audio since a tender age, my audio-epiphany occurred in the late '90s. [Though I really had better sound, in some ways, from my mobile pro-sound system (and actually used parts of it at home sometimes, especially after I relegated the Spendor to more 'appropriate' short-lived duties in my car) I'd, generally, heeded the teachings of the 'bibles of the industry', for my domestic system, up until the late nineties.] That's when I really started to find my way. That's also when I really started to seek alternatives to the mainstream mags (which I'd gradually cast aside). Alternatives such as Sound-Practices - belatedly. However, I've read quite a few of the S-P articles at 'enjoythemusic.com'. In particular, I find the writings of Greg Boynton especially interesting, as he delves into horns, and into the make-up and design of Altec speakers, in general. I also liked the writings of those guys that built the Altec-based Exemplar speaker-system - Jeff Markwart is one (the other name eludes me, at the moment, sorry). Yep, I'd say I'm definitely a fan of that mag, and I think it's a loss to us all that it's no longer in operation. (It's listed & linked in my site's; 'Guide To All Audio-Mags', by the way). The Audio Critic is another great mag (also linked) and also discontinued. Oh, and The Audio-Critique (by Arthur Salvatore) is, thankfully, still in operation - it's outstanding. Let me know if you've read it. If not, then there's also a link to it at my site. OK, so I was familiar with the quality of Tannoys for a while, but the late Harvey Rosenberg's intelligent 'rants' were what first alerted me to the heightened level of performance Westminsters are capable of. (I believe his were the first Westies in the US). I also remember reading an article by Stereophile's Art Dudley extolling the virtues of the those same Westminsters, after having spent a night on the couch in front of them. And, speaking of Stereophile, I'm sure you must be aware of the quality of J. Gordon Holt's articles. However, I'm not sure you're also aware that some of these may still be found in their 'Archives'. If not, then you could also link to these from the fore-mentioned 'Guide To All Audio-Mags'. Pity the mag JGH founded now dwells in the gutters. With regard to spikes, and other 'tweaks', bear with me as I express the long-winded version of my opinion: I believe some 'tweaks' are beneficial, to some degree. And spikes for speakers are among them, in certain circumstances, especially where carpets are involved. However, I also believe most 'tweaks' are more trouble than they're worth. Many of these 'tweaks' could be the products of superstition, but I also suspect most are the products of fertile (if devious) minds in search of innovative ways to fleece audiophiles of their hard-earned cash. In system-building, I believe ALL the budget should be dedicated to the speakers and other major components of the system (in that general order). Even exotic and expensive cables should be put on hold at this stage, in my opinion, since the components themselves are much more important, with much greater contribution to the overall quality of the system (Rat-Shack cables will do, for starters - I'd swear). Long after the very best equipment have been acquired, for the available funds initially, then exotic and expensive cables and 'tweaks' may be added, at the listener's discretion, and as funds become available. My general advice to those interested would be that no cable or tweak ever made a bad system good, but there are very good systems bereft of expensive cables and tweaks. This fact, by itself, determines the position of expensive cables and most tweaks on my priority-list. That being said, I'm fully aware, from experience, that even with the very best system one's ever owned, the 'upgrade-bug' will still bite, sooner or later. At some stage or other, we'll inevitably feel the urge to do something, even to an outstanding system. This is where I think tweaks are invaluable since, instead of mucking-up a perfectly good system with un-necessary equipment-changes along the 'upgrade-path', we may simply add a tweak or two and reap the harmless benefits - real or imagined. With that being also said, I reiterate that speaker-spikes are among the more worth-while tweaks, in my own humble opinion. So then, if I were asked, the short answer would be; yeah, I'd go for it. I'd spike them Double-Tannoys to 'high-Heaven'. By the way, that pdf with the Westminster mods could never be argued against. They're the best kinds of tweaks - perfectly logical. But then, these are only my opinions. YMMV. Kindest regards, WAJ. . Record-Cleaning, Music, OTL TV amps & Single-Speakers
Hi, Regarding the modus-operandi for your dust-buster, you mentioned; "I seem to have hit on something that actually works very well with one proviso, clearing the debris after digging it out of the grooves." And, for that proviso, you also mentioned; "I have come up with the idea of mounting the brush in a Perspex channel with the brush just protruding, by around 1/4”, and applying suction from a portable vacuum unit via flexible tube." Obviously an ingenious solution has already been worked-out. Further comment from me would only contaminate pure genius. My own ideas (not for dust, but for wet-cleaning) when I once contemplated this perennial issue we all must confront, is this: An old dis-used turntable with a brush attached to an arm-wand a la Shure V15. Rubbing-alcohol, gravity-fed thru a tube to a point just before the brush. Regarding any debris dislodged in this manner, the idea is that the brush would follow the spiral-grooves of the record to the very end, where said debris could be gotten rid of, as we go about repeating the process for the other side. Not too sure how effective this would be since I still do it by hand, augmented by lint-free cloth. Yep! Some of us just have no class! Speaking of which; I did previously allude to my long involvement, from youth-stage, with my mobile pro-sound DJ-system - to cite its full nomenclature. Perhaps because of this involvement, my main area of expertise (if we should be so bold as to call it that) is in the area of popular music; R&B, etc - hence my long-standing vexation at the antics of studio-engineers, and the effect this has on a revealing system such as my home-systems, thru the years. Because of its very common use of some acoustic instruments, mainly piano and guitar, I've long been especially fond of 'folk-rock' from the '60s. Starting around 15 years ago, or perhaps before, I find myself gravitating towards Jazz, especially acoustic, the older I get. Also since then, I've found that I've acquired a taste for classical music. And though this has been the case for quite a few years, I refuse to consider myself anywhere near an expert on either jazz or the classics. So even though it's true that, since my youth, Ive listened to every type of music (as long as the quality was apparent) the popular genres are the main areas in which I feel expert and confident enough to name names and versions of performances - I'll recite such details in my sleep, literally. I spend so much time stressing the importance of acoustic music in system-assessment, that I suppose it's natural to assume I'm a long-standing expert at the classics - the most common or obvious source of acoustic music. Naw. My all-time favorites are still the the popular fare such as the1812 Overture, the Nutcracker Suite, and Beethoven's Fifth. Sure I like many others, but for most of those I'd still have to refer to the record itself for detailed info, if you catch my drift, I wouldn't venture to name composers, etc, as I would for such like the 1812, for instance. For non-critical listening, I've also taped many classics, and jazz (not on R2R - high-quality 6hr HiFi-VCR, actually) from various sources, most of which I haven't the faintest clue as to who, what, when, or where, the answers to such questions as composer, conductor, soloist, orchestra, venue, etc, may be. In fact those 6hr tapes are my most frequently used source of music since I don't have to regularly change discs as I listen while I work. Nevertheless, I doubt I'll ever be as versed in any other genres apart from those I grew-up with. So much for that, anyway. On the subject of OTL amplifiers, my young ears, between 11 and 14 years of age, may well have fooled me, but I'd swear no high-end amp has ever sounded quite as good, in some ways, as my parents' Philips TV (which was actually turned over to me, for experimentation) at the time. Much later in life, I've come to learn that the speaker in that TV is now considered a classic, in certain circles (Here's a link to OMA's example of a speaker-system utilizing multiples of a similar Philips TV 800 ohm driver: http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/oswaldmill08/oswald_2.html I've also since discovered that the tube-amplifier in that TV was an OTL, also respected by a few for some reason, I seem to recall. So it seems my pre-teen ears were not wrong, after all. As I remember, this amp/speaker-combo excelled at the separation of instruments, airiness, and natural tone reminiscent of the real thing (which I'd become cognizant of, even then). Are you, or any of your associates, aware of this TV phenomenon? Though I'm happy with what I now use, I'd be happy to find an amp which could mimic the outstanding OTL amp in that Philips TV. I kid you not. Cheers WAJ P.S. Ah yes, the site is up and runnin' again, so the review, etc, will be posted as soon as I get round to it. Btw, thanks to OMA's thread, I now wonder if the speaker is the item most responsible for the unique sound-quality of my long-past Philips-TV combo. I actually preferred music on that TV to that from my dad's stereo, at the time - and still long for a slightly-improved version of that sound - really. MORE TO COME NEXT WEEK. |
Click to
set custom HTML
Batch # 1 LETTERS to an AUDIOPHILE *First Contact: Message from reader: *First reply from WAJ on AUDIO *From reader: The issue of a review & etc *From me: The issue of a review *From reader: Review sent & etc *Reader's Review: Double-Tannoy Audio-System * Double Tannoy: A World-Class System / The Lack of Low-Midrange / & Mutilated Recordings *Radical Ideas, ReVox, Recordings, Turntables, Speakers * A brief look at the cause of modern speakers’ problems * Audiophiles (including me) brainwashed by mainstream audio-mags * The relevance of tweaks, exotic cables, and foo-foo dust * Record-Cleaning, Music, OTL TV amps & Single-Speakers Batch # 2 *HiFi paragons *Some other paragons *More reading * More reading - Exotic Cables & Live vs Recorded Demos *Next missive - Birth of current WAJ on AUDIO ref system *Describing some components of WAJ on AUDIO ref system *How to be an idiot 2 - Speakers *Amps & Speakers *Of Grados & super-tweeters, etc, etc. *More on super-tweets *Mids thru large cones. And mids thru too-large cones *Tannoys, Altecs, Digital Music Servers, and other issues. Batch # 3 *Different Strokes: ‘Boston-Bland’ and ‘The Grado-Sound’ & Rear-Horns and Phase-Cancellations *A few thoughts on the BASSic issues * A few more thoughts on the BASSic issues - with emphasis on the Jensen Imperial - Recordings too * More ramblings of a demented ‘Imperial’ mind! * Altec 605/604 Differences & Tannoy in Imperial * Photos, Musical-Preferences & Reasons to be Cyber-Shy |
|
|