Spend a little, get a lot

Cdc: What i have over here right now is a complete cluster**** of electronics stacked everywhere. It's not pretty, nor even real usable in some instances.

I've been experiencing flooding on a couple of different occassions here lately, resulting in the removal of parts of my basement ( two walls ) and the redistribution of TONS of "spare" gear stacked all over the house. I did this to protect the gear once i realized that we had water coming in and were expecting more heavy rains. I lost several days of work in doing so, which hurt me both physically and monetarily. All of this because of recent construction in the area, which changed the water routing / sewer capacities.

My girlfriend said that the inside of our house looks like an electronics version of Fred Sanford's back yard! I wish i could disagree with her, but she's right !!! It is amazing the amount of "stuff" that i've collected over the years.

The funny / sad part is that i ran out of room a long time ago, hence my renting a warehouse with my brother just so that we would have room to work on / build some of the projects we have going on. As it is, i now have items that i've moved over there for storage too i.e. multiple cases full of raw speaker drivers, transformers, etc... This is besides having a garage full of "stuff" stacked to the rafters.

I think that my "hobby" has gotten a bit out of hand. Needless to say, there's plenty of material for a Stereophile article here, as in how NOT to do things or let your "hobby" get too out of hand :(

As to copper foils, i think that Chris VH had info about various sources for this material in the archives of AA. Try looking in the Cable Asylum and do a search for "copper foil", etc.. The key here is to find a way to keep the foils seperated enough not to short out, yet stacked close enough together to maintain the appropriate impedance for best power transfer.

As far as isolation transformers go, Ebay can be a phenomenal resource for these. I've purchased several from there for FAR less than i've been able to find them anywhere else. Like anything else though, how you impliment them into the AC system can make as much of a difference as to whether or not they work as as intended. Sean
>

sean October 27, 2006 16:19

Owner

Hi Sean. I have all three twisted together. I originally had the 2 sets of 3 wires separated but this caused problems so now the + and - , three strands each are all just twisted together.
The enamel wire coating allows close placement since it is only air dielectric. I should probably go Goertz. Are there any low cost suppliers of flat enamel copper foil? I will have to do a search sometime.
Also considered low cost powere conditioning like islation x-former but don't know how much improvement and cost seems far North of $50.00. So just dedicated lines for now. Got rid of the Tripp-Lite Isotel as I think it was putting out some nasty HF rubbish that was giving me ear pain. Sort of like a digital amp.
Hey do you ever have guests over? I'd love the hear your showroom. Sounds like you have enough innovative stuff to warrant a Stereophile feature.
Thanks for the help.

cdc October 26, 2006 21:23

Cdc: I see that you're using one strand of 22 gauge and two strands of 26 gauge for speaker wire. Is this for interconnects, speaker cables or both? How do you have the conductors configured? Your wording in the description is kind of vague as it implies that the two 26 gauge are twisted together, but it is unclear as to their relationship to the 22 gauge conductor. Sean
>

sean October 26, 2006 03:19

Good for you! You don't need to spend gobs of money to get good sound.

Sometimes, some people spend gobs because they can for status.

Makes me crazy at times.

linnie01 October 23, 2006 18:17

Owner

Thanks Sean. Those Ohm F's sound very interesting. While I'm still trying, I have had a hard time finding a suitable improvement. Currently looking into modding standard paper drivers to eliminate resonant peaks. Right now, running a driver larger than 3" gives harsh breakups that aren't too pleasant for long term listening.
I read your threads about solid vs. stranded and that was a factor in me trying the magnet wire. Not as good as the Mapleshade stuff or Audiquest but it's in the ballpark and has a similar tonality which is the big thing for me.
I really lucked out with synergy. Have been switching out foam damping material inside the speaker. I've discovered even something as simple as foam can have a big impact on the clarity vs. brightness issue.

cdc October 23, 2006 15:24

Cdc: Can you picture the amount of timbral and harmonic coherence that you currently have combined with POUNDINGLY deep bass and an extremely spacious sounding 360* radiation pattern? If so, you'll understand why i feel the way that i do about my Ohm F's : )

As i've said in the past, hearing a TRUE "full range" point source driver in itself is a revelation in terms of harmonic structure. Combining that with the spatial qualities of a "true" Walsh driver makes for a presentation that will have one re-assessing their listening priorities.

There's also something to be said for using a single path of solid core wire for each polarity, isn't there? Obviously, we have more in common in our findings and experience than differences, and i think that says a lot.

I'm glad that you were able to find something that makes you happy, both in terms of sonics and an enjoyable hobby ( DIY electronics ). So many people overlook the simple things that form the foundation for good sound and an enjoyable experience, as they get hung up on brand names and cost. That's too bad in my opinion, as they'll never know what they are missing. Sean
>

sean October 22, 2006 08:36

Owner

The Quest for that Old-time Religion - PART II

The road to audio hell is paved with well-intentioned multi-way speakers. In its most benign implementation, as a two-way, the music is split apart between a woofer/midrange and a tweeter, typically in the octave from 2 to 4 kHz. The fundamentals are reproduced by the woofer/midrange, while most of the harmonics are assigned to the tweeter. This then is the sonic equivalent of that kitchen wonder - the Veg-O-Matic. You slice and dice harmonic textures with the hope that somehow the drivers can then properly synthesize the musics waveform. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to realize that when these drivers are mounted on a loudspeaker baffle, often with their acoustic centers 6-inches apart, that sonic integration is problematic. The differences in time delay between each driver and the listening seat typically result in severe interference effects in the frequency range overlapped by the drivers. In an effort to better integrate the transition region, many designers have pushed the tweeters crossover frequency lower, sometimes precipitously close to its free-air resonance. This approach is based on the firm acoustic ground; in that driver spacing becomes a smaller fraction of the wavelength at a lower frequency. Hence, a lower crossover frequency minimizes interference effects and produces a smoother transition between the drivers over a larger sweet spot at the listening seat. While such a solution results in a smoother frequency response, often the sound quality is far worse because of increased distortion. That poor tweeter is made to work much harder than it really wants to. In the end, it is reduced to painful screaming. This problem is endemic to many modern designs, and it doesnt matter whether that 1-inch dome tweeter is made of fabric, plastic, paper, metal, Kevlar, or even cheddar cheese. As a musical peak hits the tweeter, its distortion spectrum rises sharply, and in addition, it compresses the musics dynamics. To make matters worse, all this happens in the upper midrange (2 4 kHz), where the ear is most sensitive. I dont care how old you are, or how much high-frequency hearing loss you may have suffered, our auditory system is optimized for acuity just in this range. By definition, distortion in this range is very audible and objectionable. I have literally cringed when auditioning $10K and even more expensive speakers while trying to reproduce something as simple as female voice.

cdc September 14, 2006 23:25

Owner

What the heck, why not take up some bandwidth?

"The Quest for that Old-time Religion"

There was a time, two generations ago, when the full-range cone driver reigned supreme. In an age when the radio console together with the shellac 78-rpm record defined audio quality, a frequency range of 60 Hz to 9 kHz was about as wide a window as was needed or desired for the enjoyable reproduction of available source material. If anyone dared to open the window any wider especially in the treble - they ran the risk of exposing gremlins such as needle scratch and other high-frequency hash and noise. With the advent of the high-fidelity phenomenon in the 50s, the audio industry moved inexorably toward multi-way loudspeakers, such as two and three-way designs, as a means of expanding the bandwidth at the frequency extremes. The advertising campaigns/hype at the time were so effective, that for many people Hi Fi became synonymous with bandwidth. Many consumers expected to pay a premium for a high-fidelity loudspeaker basically because of its increased bandwidth. Even today, many audiophiles and audio engineers seem convinced that the road to hi-fi heaven lies at the frequency extremes. Of course, music lovers know that this is patently false, and that the emotional content and drama of live music have little to do with the frequency extremes.

H. A. Hartley - a contemporary of Voigt and Lowther - devoted much of his life to perfecting the single-driver, full-range, loudspeaker. He lived through the transition from full-range to multi-way, and clearly realized that the widest frequency response was obtainable from a multi-driver design. Hartley noted that if mere width of frequency response was the ultimate goal then such a system would be ideal. Sure audiophiles want it, he said, but I have no real evidence that music lovers want it. His original bandwidth desideratum for music lovers, laid down in the 30s, was perfect reproduction between the limits of 32 and 9,000 Hz. With 30 years worth of hindsight, he expanded the limits from 20 to 12,000 Hz. The crucial point is that while theres nothing wrong per se with the pursuit of bass or treble extension to the threshold of audibility, the heart and soul of the music remain within the range of 60 Hz to 9 kHz. And that, my friends, is precisely the frequency domain of the full-range driver. Its magic comes from having a single coherent voice span the critical midrange and lower treble octaves.

cdc September 14, 2006 23:23

Owner

Andrew, rebels unite!
Thanks for the open minded response to my post about Rotel. That's why I listed other options I like better IMHO. Always interesting to hear people bash stuff and see what THEY like. So maybe people prefer Rotel and not like Denon (sort of dead sounding), Harmon Kardon, or NAD but that's how I hear it anyhow.
Good luck on the Denon D-F101s if you get it. I've had my eye on that chip-amp receiver but can't buy it alone. Too bad Denon dropped the Mission M71 speakers that used to come with it. You will really need to use your own speakers now.
I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the improvement over JVC. Just my opinion again, good luck.

cdc September 14, 2006 22:59

CDC, I see your point of view. The best system is not the one that costs mega bucks but the one gives your pleasure. Thanks for the Denon mini system recomendation. I do have a very nice JVC mini system with Kevlar mini speakers that I dearly in love with after I sold all my ultra hi-end gears few years ago. My son now really enjoy the JVC with his computer gears. Unconformist or should I call a rebel one.

andrewdoan September 14, 2006 17:46

Owner

Mdhoover, nice review. I think I can relate to the type of sound you describe. Sounds like they are well worth the money for what they offer. They are on my list of speakers to audition.

cdc May 24, 2006 00:36

I don't know who his dealers are, other than Duane. Your best bet is to call Dale Pitcher at Intuitive Design. That number is 307-532-2616. He can steer you to a dealer. If Dale's out of town doing another huge custom set-up and therefore not answering the phone, then it's best to leave a message. Dale's a genius and is in high demand without ever having to advertise, as far as I can tell, but sooner or later you'll find him back from his latest "mission." He's wonderful to talk with. If you don't want to wait, then you can call Duane, at 563-386-7800. One person who owns Intuitive Design Summits is John Hillig, of Musical Design and Musical Concepts. He might be able to help as well. I will humbly suggest that it is indeed worthy of your time to figure out a way to listen to these--they're magical. Did you get a chance to read my review?

mdhoover May 22, 2006 04:42

Owner

Well, your aphorism impressed me. I never thought of that before.
I agree the internet is a better place to get straightforward ideas with less of the agenda of the mass media.
So where can I check out the Intuitive Design Summits?

cdc May 22, 2006 03:07

Well...um....GOLLY!

OK, seriously, my position is probably somewhere in the middle. I do feel that there is a general tendency toward higher sound and build quality and higher price points, but that it's neither perfect, nor linear (law of diminishing returns), nor without many, MANY (sometimes glaring) exceptions. I'm in it for the sound, period. That alone was difficult enough to achieve: as for a showpiece, forget about it. One exception is that I am genuinely happy for people who are so satisfied that they've posted virtual systems, be they big buck or small buck. Maybe some of those people are showing off, but I interpret it differently--they're sharing their contentment.

As for reviews, I tend to use those as a starting point only--just to get some ideas. Among reviews, some of the consumer reviews posted right here on Audiogon, and other places like Audioreview, are quite good. I read professional reviews only rarely. Many of them seem incredibly longwinded and pretentious. That style of writing is for me a red flag warning that the author probably has very little relevant information to present. My own review of the Intuitive Design Summits (written purely out of inspired, awestruck gratitude) was excruciatingly long, so I probably sound like a hypocrite, but at least I tried to include some relevant content, and give examples. Also, although I did present the SPEAKERS as being phenomenal, I did not try to pass MYSELF off as some self-appointed "expert." My only goal was to get a few people interested enough to at least AUDITION them if they were in the market for speakers.

In the final analysis, my own ears and sonic preferences trump all else in making audio purchase decisions, and I feel that ideally that should be the case for all of our fellow A'gon-izers--not trying to impress strangers they don't even know, or for that matter, people they do know. Why on earth would anyone want to impress ME, and vice versa? It smacks of pathologic insecurity and warrants pity more than anything else, in my opinion.

I'm lucky enough to have "ears" very similar to those of fellow Audiogon member Duane, a veteran dealer who has provided me with the shortcut to audiophile nirvana (for me, anyway). However, I still take vicarious pleasure in seeing the happiness of others as well.

mdhoover May 22, 2006 01:15

Owner

Good article. I liked the part "Presumably, more intense interpersonal threats often trigger quick, self-protective responses that mute our initial feelings of dislike". Sort of like willing ourselves to like the stereo we bought while if we heard the same setup at someone else's house we'd not like the sound so much because there was no self-investment.
It is a challenge to solve the hi-end audio conundrum. I see the first step as separating the folks who just want to spend a lot of money for bragging rights from folks who are in it for the sound.
Nothing wrong with having nice stuff like Porche, swimming pool etc. It's just that companies like Wilson, IMHO, create a twisted snarl of confusion between big bucks and better sound. While I can't fight through Wilson's logic, I know they are propagating a really screwed up philosphy which is killing hi-end audio. I.E. 30% drop in sales in the past 2 years.
Sure there is room for everyone in hi-end audio. But I'm trying not to get confused by the people in it for the sake of throwing their money (or superior intelligence) around. A perfect example is Stereophile's June 2006 "As we see it". Jason brags about how he "stood right next to a Guarneri violin" and "10 feet from Janis Joplin", and was "weaned on the sound of Enrico Caruso". So Jason knows real sound while the rest of us poor souls who have not "accumulated a reservoir of sonic memories and beauty" that "holds me in good stead" will settle for "distinctly colored and hyped sound". Maybe like Focal's $4,000 Electra 1007Be with 5dB boost in treble and bass? Naw, A prestige brand like Focal would never stoop to hyped up sound.
Does this guy really know what he is talking about? I'd love to know what Jason has for speakers. Unless he has full range drivers or sits in the tiny sweet spot of 1st order x-over, his speakers are destroying the harmonic structure of the music. Can his golden ears hear this?
Unless he plays his stereo at the perfect volume setting as determined by the manufacturer, the balance between tweeter and midrange will be off giving too bright or too dull a sound. Heck the guy's not even bright enough to face the speakers towards each other to cancel out the sound when breaking in his Bybees, thus "sorely testing the patience of my spouse".

cdc May 21, 2006 15:24

I saw an aphorism once that I think is really quite applicable to "us" audiophile types:

Success = getting what you want
But happiness = liking what you get

Even though you appear to have already come to similar conclusions on your own, you still may (or may not, it's totally up to you) want to check this out, as it would tend to lend credence to your points made in the "Merry-Go-Round" thread:

Interesting article on "Affective Forecasting"--some old, trite-sounding words of wisdom have now been corroborated by scientific research.

mdhoover May 20, 2006 03:37

Owner

Thanks Mdhoover, I'm not always sure how my comments come across given my system. For now I'm happy living in a state of "good enough". More bass would be nice. As good as other stereos sound in my search for perfection(Creek / Epos M15 in particular) what I have is okay for now.
When my Panasonic mini broke down, it came down to a decision between the real deal and a better mini-system. Well plan "A", the real deal, didn't work out with more tears of heartache than tears of joy so went with plan "B".

cdc May 19, 2006 18:47

Saw your very wise sounding reply in the Merry Go Round thread and had to see your system. Very interesting and well thought out. Thanks for sharing.

mdhoover May 18, 2006 23:03

Owner

Hi Timrhu, no photo of mine I'll try to get one can't promise when. Very similar to these

Mine are much prettier IMHO being blue metallic/clear coat automotive finish with silver driver.

These rollerblocks look very good to me because they have metal bearing surface but are damped with wood which has nice tonality. My metal ones are somewhat bright so now back to the foot smoothing stones. From what I can gather, make sure the bearing surface is **mirror polished** because the ball will get caught in even the tiniest mark and not roll freely.
I tried balls from polycarbonate, acrylic, delrin, maple wood, and brass but steel has the lowest rolling resistance. May try ceramic which cost $3.95 per ball. I used 3 rollerblocks - 2 at the front and one at the back.

Another good tweak is Novus #1 polish on CD's. I rub most of it off after it dries with a glasses microfiber cloth I got at Wal-Mart for $2.00.

cdc January 30, 2006 21:20

Can you post some pics of your speakers. Like you, I have also forsaken the high $ route for simpler, more ear friendly system. Not really a tweak addict although I have a bag of lead shot on top of cdp so I might try the roller feet.
As for the system, simplicity always seems to work best for me.

timrhu January 30, 2006 15:01

Owner

Gmood1, my speakers are very similar to what is in the photo 7" x 5" x 7" and tuned to 100hz with a 1" dia. x 2" long vent. Actually seem tuned to 80hz when I play test tones.
Mark, there is a lot to like with S.E.T's. For some reason the "pleasing sound quality" of these speakers is very tubelike even with S.S. The Almarro 2-way (4" mid/tweeter - no x-over) in Stereophile was described in the same way as sounding tube-like even with S.S..

cdc January 25, 2006 16:11

It sounds like you may like Single ended triodes (SET amps) You can build them yourself with minor knowledge. Welborne labs makes some nice ones. And I am sure they will go nice with your speaks..

Mark

mark02131 January 24, 2006 17:49

Cool links Cdc..when are you going to build a pair of those enclosed boxes?

gmood1 January 24, 2006 14:15

Owner

Tang-Band W3-871s speaker
W3-871s driver

cdc January 23, 2006 18:13

Let me know how the Sony amp works out. Maybe its a hidden gem also.

gmood1 January 22, 2006 18:47

Showing 1 - 25 of 29 posts

Description

Components Toggle details

Marantz CDR-500

Denon UD-M31

Radio Shack magnet wire

Epos Tang-Band W3-871s

Marantz ST 6000 tuner

Comments 29

Audiogon

Forum

Bluebook

Merch