busb said:
This was because very few people had amps powerful enough to do them justice, so they sounded a bit flat...the more power, the better.
This was because very few people had amps powerful enough to do them justice, so they sounded a bit flat...the more power, the better.
busb
Well-known member
steve_1979 said:
Discovered "Stuck" when it 1st came out digging around on iTunes. Seem to remember checking the levels & IIRC, no headroom on that recording. It gives her voice a little buzziness but hey - it's an utterly stonking song! Some songs just have all the right elements to be classics. Stuck is timeless! It's my girlfriend's ringtone.
Hey CnoE - Hejira sounds good. Forgot how good "Amelia" is. Some very fine frettless bass on the title track as well.
busb said:
I'm delighted you brought these speakers out of retirement for a little while, as I had a suspicion that they would work well with Primare.
chebby
Well-known member
Don't listen to fatiguing music.
I'm not attempting flippant humour.
Don't listen to 'test track' material or impressively re-mastered/re-cut disks where all the stuff the musician and producer never meant you to hear (and you wouldn't have heard with the technology of the era) is now revealed in gory detail and fawned over by audiophiles as evidence of 'transparency'. (There is a point where being able to hear the brand of cigarette the drummer is smoking becomes rather tiresome!)
I suspect - being a little cynical - that such 'fine detail' was over-emphasised on many a 1980s half-speed, direct cut, organic, free-range, 'limited edition' LP to appeal especially to hi-fi tweakers. ("Did you hear her filing her nails before the second verse started?")
Listen to music that you like or love and don't listen to everything as if you had to write a review afterwards. (All that ernest concentration will give you a headache.)
I'm not attempting flippant humour.
Don't listen to 'test track' material or impressively re-mastered/re-cut disks where all the stuff the musician and producer never meant you to hear (and you wouldn't have heard with the technology of the era) is now revealed in gory detail and fawned over by audiophiles as evidence of 'transparency'. (There is a point where being able to hear the brand of cigarette the drummer is smoking becomes rather tiresome!)
I suspect - being a little cynical - that such 'fine detail' was over-emphasised on many a 1980s half-speed, direct cut, organic, free-range, 'limited edition' LP to appeal especially to hi-fi tweakers. ("Did you hear her filing her nails before the second verse started?")
Listen to music that you like or love and don't listen to everything as if you had to write a review afterwards. (All that ernest concentration will give you a headache.)
CnoEvil said:busb said:
This was because very few people had amps powerful enough to do them justice, so they sounded a bit flat...the more power, the better.
Yep Cno you are right. I did a lot of work with Celestion on the 600's in particular, a special stand, was developed, EAR 509 amps, the copper tweeter turned 'blue' with the driving power 509's could deliver, tried hard but never blew a drive unit!!! The stand copies were never anything like as good as my originals, copies almost always over damped, saping speaker energy, muddying the image . . . Power and a good stand, the SL series were devine!
That 'Special Stand' morphed into the Designer series, that was so successfull with many speakers but particularly the LS35a, another speaker much maligned, missused and missunderstood.
CJSF
Search out CDs mastered in the 1980s - OK they are quieter but the dynamic range is just so much better than modern CDs.
Read the Steve Hoffman Audio Forum to help track down the versions of CDs by your favourite band.
You'll be amazed at the difference this makes - modern CD mastering gives you a headache !
Secondhand CDs are unbelievebly cheap at the moment - the old ones often don't carry barcodes on the back.
Read the Steve Hoffman Audio Forum to help track down the versions of CDs by your favourite band.
You'll be amazed at the difference this makes - modern CD mastering gives you a headache !
Secondhand CDs are unbelievebly cheap at the moment - the old ones often don't carry barcodes on the back.
CJSF said:
Thx CJ..
It's good to have one's opinion verified by someone familiar with the range (SL6) that introduced the very first metal tweeter....which is now very much taken for granted.
chebby said:
You know what Chebby . . . I actualy agree with your centiment. Live in an auditorium, one would not hear that type of detail, close miking brings out the 'warts and all', it is unreal . . . but image, accustics, solos, instrument detail in soft passages, these you do hear in reality.
CJSF
Electro
Well-known member
CJSF said:
I also agree .
I have yet to hear a single special audiophile recording that sounds like real music they all sound over egged to me and hard to listen too .
It gives me the impression that the musicians are trying too hard to get the song perfect rather than just enjoying the music .
theadmans said:
Yes, if all sounds seems to be equally loud it will have more tendency to give fatttigue/ headache, but records that's not recorded loud seems to me lees fattigue like the greatest hits with toto from about 1990 it has a very soft sound and the record is not loud recorded
CnoEvil said:
Hi Cno, Mmm . . . not sure I like the way metal tweeters have gone, or perhaps I dont like the way speaker manufacturers have taken advantage of the way they 'can sound'?
I like the silk dome tweeters in my PMC's. Not that I have done much comparative listening to modern speakers . . . my LB1's are early 90's vintage. I'm very satisfied with the sound they produce, I understand it, its a referance and has allowed me to make changes knowing they are a referance one can return to, none of this round and round searching for what . . . ?
Subsequently one can sit back and enjoy a presented sound, rather like a pair of comfortable old slippers, there are no '?' over my hifi that cant be answered. Curently, I'm listening to my system as it matures . . . the valves I rolled a couple of months ago, have now accumalated well over 100 hours and it shows, smooth, relaxed, detailed, dynamic, and no listening fattigue. May have something to do with the fact that I listen a lot to old vintage recordings from the 50's, 60's and 70's, curently listening to Fankie Laine, the dynamics of these old recordings sound natural? . . . and they were almost certainly recorded on valve base equipment. One avoids remastered as much as possible.
CJSF
CJSF said:
It was really marking the fact that it was a landmark speaker.....and not just because of the Tweeter: http://www.hifinews.co.uk/news/article/celestion-sl6--vintage/9405
Not all metal dome tweeters sound abrasive, as Harbeth and Kef R series have shown (and not all silk dome are sweet, for that matter).
More interesting insight (at least for SL6 owners): http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/26/265906.html
I suffered from listening fatigue after I went from Dali to B&W a few years ago. This then turned in to a hunt for the right amplifier and source where I for years kept changing these over and over. In the end I got rid of the B&Ws and replaced them witrh DIY speakers designed by Troels Gravesen. After numerous emails exchanges with Troels, I realised that what he designs are speakers that makes you listen for hours without fatigue, whereas B&W seems to have a "showroom sound". I love B&Ws when listening for under an hour, but after a few hours I find that I want to turn it off and see what's on TV. But now, with my Ellam 25 with Cyrus and the Eekels Mini with NAD I can leave it on for hours and still enjoy it. The difference is a more forward and slightly lifted treble. The DIYs both have a flat response
I at times feel that my current speakers are a little "reserved" when I first start listening. I have realised that this is not a fault, but the fact that the showroom effect is not there
See "Your system" for both speakers and do a search on the Internet for Troels Gravesen
I at times feel that my current speakers are a little "reserved" when I first start listening. I have realised that this is not a fault, but the fact that the showroom effect is not there
See "Your system" for both speakers and do a search on the Internet for Troels Gravesen
CnoEvil said:
Agreed Cno, these days, one has a very limited view of the hifi world . . . if one thinks about it, so do most of us, hifi shops are few and far between, compared with 20 years ago? So often, if one beleaves what you read on the net, people rely on reviews and biased recomendations??? . . . my cynical side emerging.
Yes, one remember the launch of the SL6 . . . hailed as the inovation of the time. I had to have a pair, that was the start of my association with Celestion . . . then came the 600's they realy set people back on their heals, inovation was the watch word.
. . . Hazel has no idea what I'm typing . . . she just said to me, 'its all hi-tech these days, leaving us old'uns behind, it aint fair'. Not sure I worry about the not fair in hifi terms? I like 'old' . . . I understand it better, there is something about the simplicity of; TT, valves, speakers on stands, basic cable, I would even include 'toung in cheak' CD's and vinyl here, there is a life that modern whiz-bang technology cant offer?
Tis true Cno, its the designer that dictates the final sound of a product, or is it where that dsigner wants to go . . . Bright, forward is initialy impresive, but after a while 'listening fattigue' sets in . . . takes me back to the early (80's) Mission systems, bright, in your face, pin sharp image, impressive . . . after half an hour I felt like some one had split my head with an axe. But one would still came back for more, to be impressed for another half hour . . . we dont learn do we? The real thing just aint like that.
CJSF
I source my listening fatigues here
http://www.fatiguesarmynavy.com/
Although I rately kit up in full BDU unless I'm doing some serious listening. Trousers or shorts in MARPAT (because all my listening is from digital sourcers rather than analogue)...
http://www.fatiguesarmynavy.com/
Although I rately kit up in full BDU unless I'm doing some serious listening. Trousers or shorts in MARPAT (because all my listening is from digital sourcers rather than analogue)...
plastic penguin
Well-known member
CJSF said:
CJ
Come and listen to my set-up and I'm sure your views will change. My kit is everything you dislike: Bright solid state amp, metal domed tweeters. You'll have a set perception before you walk thru the door but you'll leave with a very different view.
This is genuine invitation and I'll cook some lunch as well.
Over to you, CJ.
busb
Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
I can remember reading that article. I quote from its Verdict: " You feel that inside this 12-litre box is an excellent speaker trying to get out. Maybe not one for rockers, but it can still make a nice sound." indeed, it was called the SL600 (with modified drivers etc). Still a daft comment. Am listening again this morning & conclude the reviewer could have used a better amplifier because, as flawed as they are, they'd still give many modern speakers a run fo their money when it comes to imaging & vocal band integtation. They only took an hour to wake up.
I'm pretty certain that if I returned to using BluTac, they would sound a great deal poorer. As mentioned in the past, I had whisps of smoke coming from the tweeters whose domes promptly turned black (it was the HFN test disc!) Oddly, they seemed uneffected but I sent them back to Huntingdon(?) where they also offered to split the Xover & fit an extra pair of 4mm sockets. When I eventually got around to bi-wiring them, was very surprised how well doing so worked. They did need very good amplification - I stumbled across Lynx in Reading Cassette. I bought their integrated Quasar amp that cost £500 back in ~1985. I was stunned by it SQ Built in NZ!
It's going to equally interesting returning to the Totems - what they lack in richness, they make up for with speed/dynamics & image depth.
busb said:
You may be correct, and certainly if more than a tiny amount was used....they could sound over-damped, especially as the stands are sand filled.
I have suspended wooden floors, so the extra de-coupling was needed.
steve_1979
Well-known member
roten said:
+1
IMO the best speakers don't 'dazzle' you. They should just replay whatever is sent to them without adding anything to the sound in any way. Neutral low distortion speakers should just be clear right across the frequency range without any part jumping out at you and grabbing your attention.
I think that maybe the word that you're looking for roten is "clarity" not "reserved". High clarity doesn't jump out at you it just sounds clear, detailed and easy to listen to.
GMK said:
IMO. It can make a difference, depending on interaction between speakers / stands / floor (whether it's suspended wooden / concrete).
More experimentation to come then. While I'm at it I'll A-B between the Blu-tack and these small stick on rubber feet that came with a pair of my floorstanders that are unused
GMK said:
Let us know what you find....even if it's no change.
IMO Speakers should be coupled to a concrete floor (with spikes) in order to sink unwanted vibrations into it.
They should be de-coupled from a suspended floor by using Granite under the spikes (on Spike Shoes), and isolating the speakers from the stand itself with the likes of Blu-tac.
Adding mass / damping to Stands is all about experimentation ie. What to use (Rice, Lead Shot, Atabites, Kiln Dried Sand), and how much you fill them. Some speakers respond to high mass stands, but it can remove life from others (which prefer a light stable stand).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram