Good, cheap used speakers

[Globs]

legzr1 said:

drop the generalisation, sweeping rubbish and slight condescension.

Some generalisation of brands is required for casual 'what speakers' sorry if I was too sweeping there. I was referring to a brand, not a product A vs Product B, of course many other speakers will be better than many Tannoy's - but as a whole Tannoy is one of the top brands. Which is what I thought I said, sorry if that didn't come across.

If the OP switches brands I have no advice apart from to ignore What HiFi and to listen to stuff with the same source and amp (ideally his source and amp) but that's gets a bit long winded as a motoring forum answer. So to clarify my advice is stick with Tannoy, they are a world leader.

legzr1 said:

I'm also struggling to see the 'benefit' of trying to remove digital clipping (already encoded into the signal) from compressed music files.

Not wishing to derail the thread too much I'll be brief:

Define compression: There are 3 types: Audio, digital lossless, digital lossy. I presume you mean the latter - e.g. MP3s, but you don't have to play MP3s - you could play FLACs instead - a much better choice.

In the case of MP3s - so I'd have to ask: Do you consider the waveforms from MP3s to be that different to the original?
And the 2nd - more obvious question: Have you taken an MP3 into Audacity and had a look at the waveform?

If you meant audio compression - then funnily enough the act of declipping itself adds dynamic range so although still compressed, it is still closer to the original.

It's all detail and a quest for fidelity - which is really what HiFi used to be about. Today HiFi seems to be about numbers and selling surround sound with a mutilated digital format sold with the life already driven out of it: which is one reason why people's HiFi choices is not as important as they may think

[legzr1]

Globs said:

Not wishing to derail the thread too much I'll be brief:

Define compression: There are 3 types: Audio, digital lossless, digital lossy. I presume you mean the latter - e.g. MP3s, but you don't have to play MP3s - you could play FLACs instead - a much better choice.

In the case of MP3s - so I'd have to ask: Do you consider the waveforms from MP3s to be that different to the original?
And the 2nd - more obvious question: Have you taken an MP3 into Audacity and had a look at the waveform?

If you meant audio compression - then funnily enough the act of declipping itself adds dynamic range so although still compressed, it is still closer to the original.

It's all detail and a quest for fidelity - which is really what HiFi used to be about. Today HiFi seems to be about numbers and selling surround sound with a mutilated digital format sold with the life already driven out of it: which is one reason why people's HiFi choices is not as important as they may think

Tony covered most of your previous attempt but this last paragraph is slightly confusing.

I get you're trying to sell something but how do you equate 'a quest for fidelity' with a business selling something to 'improve' lossy, clipped material?
Are you polishing a turd?

I get that some prefer the harmonic distortion of tube design, can live with the limitations, heat and (relatively) low power outputs but Class D?
Perhaps things have moved on - it's been a while since I listened to iCE stuff, bel canto, Hypex and the like but I'll take Class A/B for now thanks.

[Globs]

legzr1 said:

Tony covered most of your previous attempt but this last paragraph is slightly confusing.

I get you're trying to sell something but how do you equate 'a quest for fidelity' with a business selling something to 'improve' lossy, clipped material?
Are you polishing a turd?

My previous attempt? Sorry you're a bit confused now.

You get nothing. FFS, I've removed the website from my profile as you are using it to turn a suggestion for second hand speakers and hifi improvement into accusations of trying to sell something. You brought it up, not me. Why do I even bother posting?

Incidentally my media player is a sideline: not the business. Dam those people making things people can choose to buy eh?! The bds.
I also didn't comment on this subject to end up being told that working in digital processing was a waste of time by someone who is still thinks crossover distortion is a neat idea. And you call me condescending, Jeez!

legzr1 said:

I get that some prefer the harmonic distortion of tube design, can live with the limitations, heat and (relatively) low power outputs but Class D?
Perhaps things have moved on - it's been a while since I listened to iCE stuff, bel canto, Hypex and the like but I'll take Class A/B for now thanks.

You're also not getting this: Tube sound is not a preference, it's a lack of distortion. Of course people prefer 2nd order distortions over odd order - that's the way the ear/brain works - tubes merely generate less odd order distortions. You don't understand how important the inherent linearity of active components are.

You are also misquoting/misunderstanding my words, I stated the triodes are the most linear devices which is a quite different field to tube amplifier design. Indeed McIntosh uses a tube design with a transistor implementation in one of their excellent amps. The Sansui 5000 is a similar case in point.

To understand (not guess) why a class AB and B is compromised you need to know something about basic amplifier design, which as i said is for some reason a rare thing. Perhaps due to lack of HiFi subjects in electronics degrees. The problem is always the same however: distortion. Mathematically and from measurement data crossover distortion is generated and also a impedance change. Much of that is masked if the quiet zone is operated in class A (Class AB) but the transition out of the quiet zone is still compromised.

When paying hundreds of pounds for a cheap design like NAIM it's disappointing to see a design with intrinsic, avoidable flaws such as crossover distortion and the use of transistors which are highly nonlinear. The 'solution' for this is GNFB which few seem to properly understand. Wrapping feedback around several stages in an amp makes them measure far better and improve damping factors. Phase margin is also an issue for stability. The maths says this also reduces the distortion of a linear system but transistors and crossover distortion are not linear, so the feedback actually multiplies up the harmonic distortions - many of which are odd order (from the transistors) so you get a subtle wall of distortion. I.e. GNFB only MOVES the distortion out to higher harmonics. High odd order distortion is unpleasant, even at very low levels.

Common problems with that 'HiFi' amp in the shop window:
1. Measurement shows us transistors are non linear and triodes are the most linear.
2. Maths shows us GNFB only works well on distortion products in a linear system.
3. Both maths and measurements shows us crossover (nonlinear) distortion is generated from class AB and B topologies.
4. We also know that capacitors distort more than inductors from measurement, so an expensive NAIM/MISSION etc. has many know sources of distortion built right into them. This is HiFi in 2017: but we learned this stuff in the 1960s and 70s.

Many tube amps have flawed topologies too BTW like including the OPT inside the feedback loop (or arguably even having a GNFB loop but it's less of an issue with tubes because they are more linear in the first place). Quite good amps can involve a mix of tube and solid state, keeping the VAS in the tube domain and the followers as FETs can work very well and it's even possible to make a class B transistor sound good with a good topology and a very good PSU but that's vanishingly rare.

So today you have an option for amplifiers now: either use the lessons and build/buy a correctly designed tube or hybrid amp with good (expensive) magnetics, or bypass the whole minefield and jump to chip based class D. The chips and board layout address most issues so the layout, quality of the PSU, input caps and output filter are now the only remaining obstacles to a super-Fi sound for many of these cheap chips.

Class D allows us to experience truly great amplifiers for relative peanuts, for example this module
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111704075424?_trksid=p20...

is being compared to the best hi-end tube gear by the DIY community. The TDA3116 chip is creating similar waves for just a few pounds.
E.g. a couple of these with uprated caps and some air core coils will beat many traditional amps:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TPA3116-Mono-Channel-Dig...

So I stand by my comments relating to amplifiers, what may appear to be 'rubbish' or 'sweeping statements' to the uninitiated is based on basic engineering that's been common knowledge for multiple decades.

Heres some more sweeping statements based on physics and measurements: Speaker design is also inherently flawed in many cases for various 'surprising but been known for ages' reasons. You still get HiFi speakers sold with basic mistakes like electro caps and ferrite cores, bad crossover frequencies and inadequate filtering, still in HiFi shops I hear that 'polite' boxy 'Hifi sound' and still they insist on playing source material badly compressed and clipped to showcase it with.

[battered]

legzr1 said:

I'm prepared to read and listen if you drop the generalisation, sweeping rubbish and slight condescension.

Why would he do that, if he's a hifi dealer?

In answer to the OP, Tannoy Mercury are very good speakers. With a decent amp they are as good as anything else in the £250 range, and better than most. IUf they are in good order then you will need to go some way to improve on them. I'd try alternative amps. I'd forget about going active, last thing he needs is a pile of amps.

[Globs]

TonyRPH said:

Globs said:

Tech: A single cap allows too much LF to get into the tweeter and they are only linear with a tiny movement. The LF flaps the tweeter membrane around giving huge gobs of IM distortion. Awful.

Not really - a capacitor is a low pass filter and does what it says on the tin. It blocks LF from reaching the tweeter.

Not going through every point Tony so I just picked this one. Your statement is in 3 parts:

Part #1
A capacitor is NOT a lowpass filter, it's a perfect capacitor buried inside with resistance, inductance and dielectric issues.
It can be used in various ways in various filters at various roll off frequencies and various filter slopes.

Part #2
Real capacitors have intrinsic distortion which varies by type and manufacturing process. There are entire articles on the web about this, with measurements and explanations. For HiFi purposes they certainly do NOT do what they say on the tin. Even swapping an electro for a poly can have noticeable audio improvements.

Part #3
They do not 'block LF', the filter they are in can block SOME LF, a single capacitor in series with a tweeter blocks INSUFFICIENT LF and causes excess tweeter movement which in turn generates large amounts of tiring IM (Intermodulation) distortion.

This is engineering so the devil is in the detail. No one today has time for this detail which is why a lot of modern stuff is so st.
And no - too busy lowering my van to add MPD currently LOL.

[Globs]

battered said:

Why would he do that, if he's a hifi dealer?

I'm not a HiFi dealer, I'm an engineer and can back up my statements.

[TonyRPH]

Globs said:

<summary>

Tube sound
Negative feedback
Class D

</summary>

There's nothing wrong with negative feedback when correctly applied - Self (amongst others) have proven this quite conclusively.

Class D remains flawed, it has limited bandwidth, requires very quiet power supplies and the linearity is still inferior to a good class B design, but of course the class B can't match it for efficiency.

I'm surprised you've not mentioned Mosfets, and the "mosfet sound" which was always compared with tubes.

Globs said:

Not going through every point Tony so I just picked this one. Your statement is in 3 parts:

Part #1
A capacitor is NOT a lowpass filter, it's a perfect capacitor buried inside with resistance, inductance and dielectric issues.
It can be used in various ways in various filters at various roll off frequencies and various filter slopes.

Part #2
Real capacitors have intrinsic distortion which varies by type and manufacturing process. There are entire articles on the web about this, with measurements and explanations. For HiFi purposes they certainly do NOT do what they say on the tin. Even swapping an electro for a poly can have noticeable audio improvements.

Part #3
They do not 'block LF', the filter they are in can block SOME LF, a single capacitor in series with a tweeter blocks INSUFFICIENT LF and causes excess tweeter movement which in turn generates large amounts of tiring IM (Intermodulation) distortion.

This is engineering so the devil is in the detail. No one today has time for this detail which is why a lot of modern stuff is so st.
And no - too busy lowering my van to add MPD currently LOL.

I have read Cyril Bateman's paper on capacitors (amongst others) - I'm well aware of different types and their effect on the sound etc.

WRT to "Part #3" it's easy to observe that LF has indeed been blocked with a scope in a simple high pass filter to a tweeter. Are you suggesting that the maths doesn't work, and the calculations for high pass and low pass filters don't really work then?

Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to how the capacitor allows LF to reach the tweeter?

Obviously it's not perfect, as the frequency rolls off at xdB per octave (dependant on the slope) but it makes for a pretty good filter.

If it didn't work, there would be an awful lot more tweeters blown out there!

[legzr1]

Globs said:

Sorry you're a bit confused now.

Well, yes.

You post on the thread saying Tannoy is the best, Eltax are st, Class A and A/B are rubbish and bettered by tube and Class D, you (unnecessarily) remove a link to a 'sideline' that claims to remove digital clipping embeddded in the signal whilst proclaiming your desire for ultimate audio nirvana and wrap it all up with barely hidden contempt : "Me electronic guru, you nothing."

Very strange.

But not as strange as holding up the LS3/5a as some king of speaker difficult to better.

For the record, I love Tannoy D900s (and big, efficient speakers in general), I think Class D has a while to go before matching the best of transistors and 'tubes' can sound quite nice DESPITE the architecture, not because of it. And chasing distortion down to 12 decimal points is pretty meaningless when FAR greater results can be obtained from speaker/room interaction. The first time I EQd a large subwoofer was a revelation.

Oh, and how does your media player remove embedded clipping? (I agree with you, the loudness wars destroyed quality).

[Thank You For Calling]

Any of the speakers in the Tannoy Sixes range pack a punch - we've been running a pair of Tannoy 611's for around 6 years. Sound is great, just don't look too great!

[Globs]

TonyRPH said:

There's nothing wrong with negative feedback when correctly applied - Self (amongst others) have proven this quite conclusively.

Negative feedback (NFB) or Global negative feedback (GNFB)?
Correct application implies a linear system: But what amplifier is linear?
You are free to disagree with the mathematics of harmonic multiplication caused by negative feedback, I can only point them out:

http://nutshellhifi.com/library/FindingCG.html

Lynn_Olson said:

Norman Crowhurst wrote a fascinating analysis of feedback multiplying the order of harmonics, which has been reprinted in "Glass Audio," Vol 7-6, pp. 20 through 30. He starts with one tube generating only 2nd harmonic, adds a second tube in series (resulting in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th), and then makes the whole thing push-pull (resulting in 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th), and last but not least, adds feedback to the circuit, which creates a series of harmonics out to the 81st. All of this complexity from "ideal" tubes that only create 2nd harmonic!

With real devices there are even more harmonics. In terms of IM, actual amplifiers have complex and dynamic noise floors thanks to the hundreds of sum-and-difference IM terms. That's not even counting the effects of reactive loads, which adds a frequency dependency to the harmonic structure! (With reactive loads, additional harmonics appear due to the elliptical loadline seen by the power tubes. The elliptical load-line dips into the very nonlinear low-current region, resulting in an instantaneous increase in upper harmonics. This spectral "roughening" is most audible with strong low frequency program material and hard-to-drive horn or vented bass drivers.)

As Crowhurst noted, feedback mostly reduces the 2nd and 3rd harmonics, leaving the upper ones more or less alone, or sometimes even greater than before. Feedback fools the simple THD meter, but the spectrum analyzer sees through the shell game. Too bad raw power and almost useless THD measurements became the end-all and be-all for more than 50 years. If more engineers and reviewers had access to spectrum analyzers, the misleading nature of raw THD measurements would have been discovered earlier, and amplifier design might have taken a different course.

TonyRPH said:

Class D remains flawed, it has limited bandwidth, requires very quiet power supplies and the linearity is still inferior to a good class B design, but of course the class B can't match it for efficiency.

I'm surprised you've not mentioned Mosfets, and the "mosfet sound" which was always compared with tubes.

Have a read about the actual frequency a modern class D chip amp runs at, the 3116 switches at up to 1.2MHz and audio goes up to 60kHz with ease and very low distortion across the frequency and power band:
http://www.ti.com/product/TPA3116D2/datasheet/appl...

You may be thinking of yesteryear's class D with slow transistors, modern chip based ones are a very different animal.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/298796-sure...

I recommend you listen to some. I re-capped and replaced the (ferrite, undersized) inductors of two of mine with air cores (actually fairly easy to wind) and they sound very sweet and lifelike. The clarity and dynamics are quite amazing, you're really missing out by ignoring class D. Some blind tests of some nicely modded chip designs have in blind listening tests been mistaken for high end tube amplifiers.

FETS sounding like tubes is true only to a limited extent, although their character and operation is perhaps more tube like their harmonic distortion structure is still complex (i.e. the high order harmonics are still there).

From the same link as above:

Lynn_Olson said:

Device, Topology, and Harmonic Spectra

All of the foregoing applies to triodes — conventional RC-coupled, transformer, choke-loaded, SRPP, and active-load circuits such as mu-followers. It does not apply to: cascode-connected triodes, pentode, bipolar transistor, or MOSFET’s. This second group of devices do not have the simple square-law transfer characteristic of triodes; instead they have a much more complex exponential curve, and that translates into a much greater proportion of upper harmonics.

When you compare device specifications, take a close look at the ratio of 2nd to 3rd harmonic distortion for a basic single-ended circuit. Low-distortion triodes (6J5, 6C5, 6SN7, 6CG7, the new JJ ECC99, and direct-heated types) have much lower 3rd harmonic; for devices in the second group, the 3rd harmonic will equal or exceed the 2nd harmonic. Medium-to-high distortion triodes (12AU7, 6DJ8) fall between the two groups. (This is why the 6DJ8 is known for a "high-definition" transistor-like sound - the distortion spectra isn’t that different!)

TonyRPH said:

I have read Cyril Bateman's paper on capacitors (amongst others) - I'm well aware of different types and their effect on the sound etc.

WRT to "Part #3" it's easy to observe that LF has indeed been blocked with a scope in a simple high pass filter to a tweeter. Are you suggesting that the maths doesn't work, and the calculations for high pass and low pass filters don't really work then?

Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to how the capacitor allows LF to reach the tweeter?

Obviously it's not perfect, as the frequency rolls off at xdB per octave (dependant on the slope) but it makes for a pretty good filter.

If it didn't work, there would be an awful lot more tweeters blown out there!

I mentioned capacitor distortion because of your claim that they 'did what they claimed on the tin' which could mislead the un-initiated. Some other capacitor links worth reading (just for interest, first the Cyril one you mention)
http://www.waynekirkwood.com/images/pdf/Cyril_Bate...
http://www.reliablecapacitors.com/pickcap.htm

RC said:

After we had gone through all of the above exercises and exorcised our complete system of unnecessary or poor-quality capacitors, the total degree of improvement was greater than any other improvement measure ever employed. With no capacitors (or clean capacitors), you begin to hear the music in a new light, one which is much more like the sound of the real thing. In fact, you will be able to differentiate subtleties you never before even realized existed. Your system simply becomes a new system, in terms of resolution and definition. The "solid-state sound" we've all heard discussed may be largely due to lousy electrolytics&#65533;which by and large never got used in the signal path in the tube days.

So you can appreciate if distortion is easy to detect in an electro loaded into 10k the distortion of one into 8ohms is considerably worse, but the key point was one of level. A capacitor feeding a mainly resistive load forms a 6dB per octave filter as you know.
https://www.diyaudioandvideo.com/Tables/Butterwort...

Your mention of 'slope' and 'pretty good filter' inconsistent with your claim of 'blocks LF'.
A typical crossover frequency is 2.5kHz. With a 6dB/Octave filter the voltage level halves every time the frequency halves. Therefore if you feed in 1W or 2.82V in at 300Hz you'll still have around 1/8th of your voltage or 0.35V, which can move the tweeter voice coil into the nonlinear zone. The linear range of a tweeter voice coil can be in the sub millimetre region. For example this one allows 0.5mm p-p:
http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&am...

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/cros...

AH said:

Low-slope designs also allow higher tweeter excursion, leading to distortion or outright failure. For this reason (and those previously stated), most low-order designs sound strained when turned up loud. Designers that are not qualified to develop crossovers properly often tout the simple filter networks. They don’t have the knowledge and experience to handle more complicated circuits, or time delay, or phase, for example.

And yes, tweeters do fail and more fail today than ever before. Not just from cheap crossovers like I found in my Eltax (Note I didn't say they were all st, I just said I would avoid the company as I saw how bad the one i bought was), but from sheer program level.

It used to be an overloaded amp contributed to tweeter failures - or more usually their use at party levels, but the modern pop mastering of stuff already compressed has an effect too of putting more energy into tweeters so they tend to blow more. I've never blown a tweeter but on inheriting two old Missions from my brother I noted that both tweeters were blown (just outside the coils - the tails that join the coil to the solder posts).

Incidentally the tweeters on the Grundig Box speakers i recommended have the tweeter tails mounted externally - which gives them far better cooling - have a lookout for that and you'll notice it. The magnets were twice the size as the Mission's too LOL, I wasn't joking when I recommended them.

E.g.


As I said, real HiFi is becoming a lost art, but Class-D brings superFi into the realm of the affordable like nothing before: have a play with them!

[Globs]

legzr1 said:

Eltax are st, Class A and A/B are rubbish and bettered by tube and Class D, you (unnecessarily) remove a link to a 'sideline' that claims to remove digital clipping embeddded in the signal whilst proclaiming your desire for ultimate audio nirvana and wrap it all up with barely hidden contempt : "Me electronic guru, you nothing."

I can't help your interpretations of what I wrote, you seem to be reading more in there than I can find on the page. Perhaps I'm a bit blunt: Welcome to PH

I have never said that Class A is rubbish, I simply wouldn't. It isn't. Class B has well documented issues however, I'm not making this stuff up.
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/Amplifiers/a...

I didn't even say Eltax was st, I merely outlined the factual errors in the pair that I bought which is my perfectly valid reason for not recommending them.
I don't recommend B&W either as all the ones I hear sound boxy.
I didn't hold up the LS3/5 as anything, it's a comparable age and size of very well respected speaker that -in my view - is inferior to the cheaper Grundigs.

HiFi by definition is chasing distortion. Not THD figures, but REAL distortion. Plenty of awful sounding low THD stuff around.

legzr1 said:

Oh, and how does your media player remove embedded clipping? (I agree with you, the loudness wars destroyed quality).

You mean how do I remove the distortion from Angus Young's overdriven guitar amplifier?
I don't LOL, it just addresses the flat topped digital clipping found on most modern pop tracks.

BTW the 'Mastered for iTunes' masters are in general agreed to be of far better quality than the regular dross we find on CDs and downloads, re-buying your favourite tracks there could be equivalent to quite a good HiFi upgrade.

[legzr1]

Globs said:

legzr1 said:

Eltax are st, Class A and A/B are rubbish and bettered by tube and Class D, you (unnecessarily) remove a link to a 'sideline' that claims to remove digital clipping embeddded in the signal whilst proclaiming your desire for ultimate audio nirvana and wrap it all up with barely hidden contempt : "Me electronic guru, you nothing."

I can't help your interpretations of what I wrote, you seem to be reading more in there than I can find on the page. Perhaps I'm a bit blunt: Welcome to PH

Perhaps not but you could avoid seeming to damn a whole manufacturer (Eltax) because of your experience of a cheap speaker, the model number you seem to avoid mentioning.

Do you recommend everyone avoiding something like an M4 because the 2003 Mini D was a bit st?

Thanks for the welcome to PH but I've been around long enough to realise condescension and arrogance doesn't always have to be a prerequisite

Globs said:

I have never said that Class A is rubbish, I simply wouldn't. It isn't. Class B has well documented issues however, I'm not making this stuff up.
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/Amplifiers/a...

Thanks for clearing that up.

Specs, graphs and long-winded technical papers are all well and good but I'm under the impression that re-hashed Tripath digital is 'ok', cheap and efficient but better sound comes from Class A/B transistors. This impression based on actually listening to them

Globs said:

I didn't even say Eltax was st, I merely outlined the factual errors in the pair that I bought which is my perfectly valid reason for not recommending them.
I don't recommend B&W either as all the ones I hear sound boxy.
I didn't hold up the LS3/5 as anything, it's a comparable age and size of very well respected speaker that -in my view - is inferior to the cheaper Grundigs.

Reading between the lines it was quite obvious what you were driving at re: Eltax - the speakers you had were st, ergo no recommendation for any Eltax.

B&W boxy?

Are you including the 803D, 802D2 and 800D in the over-generalisation?
If not, list the speakers you find boxy.

Globs said:

HiFi by definition is chasing distortion. Not THD figures, but REAL distortion. Plenty of awful sounding low THD stuff around.

Agreed, including cheap digital and not so cheap 'tubes'.

Buy with your ears....

Globs said:

You mean how do I remove the distortion from Angus Young's overdriven guitar amplifier?
I don't LOL, it just addresses the flat topped digital clipping found on most modern pop tracks.

No.

The link you removed mentioned removing clipping from digital sources (at a guess you mean squaring sine waves at peak amplitude) as well as 'increasing dynamic range' - I've asked you more than once how it does this when the overdriven digital clipping is embedded in the data but you keep avoiding a straight answer.

What is meant by 'addressing'?

[Globs]

legzr1 said:

you could avoid seeming to damn a whole manufacturer (Eltax) because of your experience of a cheap speaker, the model number you seem to avoid mentioning.

Do you recommend everyone avoiding something like an M4 because the 2003 Mini D was a bit st?

Thanks for the welcome to PH but I've been around long enough to realise condescension and arrogance doesn't always have to be a prerequisite

If you read my original post you'll note that I express my educated opinion about a few items around the OP's original question, but YOU chose to attack ME with the phrase:

legzr1 said:

So many sweeping statements, so little time to correct them all.

Which could be seen as condescending and arrogant. You then go on to accuse me (multiple times) of the very thing you just did. There's a name for that.
I can't help that you have taken immediate umbrage to my advice for the OP and you appear to continue to carry that chip when I prove my point with examples, articles, facts and figures. What did you expect me to do?

legzr1 said:

the model number you seem to avoid mentioning.

Can't win with you can I! Lucky for you I still have them, relegated as test speakers on the work bench before I connect up anything worthwhile to a new amp.


BTW the power rating is also ridiculous, IMO they'd be toast at a fraction of that power so thanks for bringing them up again.

I recall the first time I powered them up, my jaw must have hit the floor in disbelief at their awful boxy sound and lack of resolution. They were from Richer Sounds and I didn't get a chance to listen first. Should have returned them but they were cheap and town was busy, time consuming and parking costs. Later a Maplin two way crossover improved them as did stuffing with wool but the drivers are terrible. No bass either BTW. Awful things. Now used as expendable test items. Still the worst speakers in the house by far - my bundled Sony music station ones are much better - but a lot better than they arrived.

Truly awful. Literally shocking. Took me a while to come to terms with buying separate, brand name speakers that were that dismal.

legzr1 said:

Specs, graphs and long-winded technical papers are all well and good but I'm under the impression that re-hashed Tripath digital is 'ok', cheap and efficient but better sound comes from Class A/B transistors. This impression based on actually listening to them

You dismissed my claims (see above) so I merely qualified them. Of course you don't accept the qualification, that's how belief systems work.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/why-do-we-...

regardless I have still backed up my 'rubbish and sweeping generalisations' as you put it with specs, facts and technical papers so you can dismiss them too.
Additionally there are a number of modulation schemes for class D, the TI ones are not the same as the ST/Tripath and a lot of the cheap ones suffer from poor layout, underspecced inductors and cheap capacitors. When given £10 worth of decent components and a decent SMPS they can really shine.

As for your damning faint praise of 'ok' this differs from seasoned HiFi enthusiasts and electronics experts who have tried modern class D amps that I gave links to and say things like:

Links said:

jahshines said:

You know, this is the best amp I have ever heard. I can't believe more people aren't raving about it. Lovely clear liquid midrange, bottom end grunt, crystalline highs.

denbret said:

Me too this is probably the best amp I've heard.

wdecho said:

I do not believe it is even going to be a close race. I have the Sure AA-AB32281 2X200W and the Sanwu TDA7498, not close. I have over 20 amps tube and SS, most high end builds. I am still in awe what $40 buys.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong (how can an opinion ever be wrong?) I was merely responding to your condemnation of my chip based class D recommendation by demonstrating that my viewpoint is shared by many others. Again - surely you invited me to do this?

legzr1 said:

Reading between the lines it was quite obvious what you were driving at re: Eltax - the speakers you had were st, ergo no recommendation for any Eltax.

Reading between lines?? I clearly explained - in detail - the deficiencies I found and clearly cited that as the reason I cannot recommend Eltax.

legzr1 said:

B&W boxy?

Are you including the 803D, 802D2 and 800D in the over-generalisation?
If not, list the speakers you find boxy.

No I don't think I will. I've spent too much time qualifying stuff for you already and all you do is dismiss it. It's not my job to do your homework, I merely pointed stuff out that you them immediately called foul on. I have backed up enough of my statements thank-you.

I've listened to B&W's best - with friends - at shows and in stores - and they clearly sounded boxy to all of us. I've also read reviews where they explain how the new model is less boxy than the first, but if you read the review of the previous model there's no mention of the boxiness. It's probably not in all models sure, but boxiness is not excusable for a modern speaker from a prestige manufacturer IMO. We also listen to many Dali, Tannoy, Proac, little firms too - Linn and Naim and none of them were similarly afflicted. Boxiness was identified and solutions several decades ago: There is no excuse for anyone, including Eltax and B&W.

legzr1 said:

I've asked you more than once how it does this when the overdriven digital clipping is embedded in the data but you keep avoiding a straight answer.

Here you again accuse me of evasion but I answered your question as fairly as I could:

You stated "remove embedded clipping". "Embedded clipping" is not a technical term, for me I interpreted it as things that are clipped that were embedded within the mix. E.g. a distorted guitar or the square wave of a synth.

You will need to explain what you mean by 'embedded clipping" for me to answer, I'm not a mind reader and you obviously think it has a different meaning to the one I interpreted. I have read back your question and my reply and do not find it evasive, I find it clearly answers what I interpreted as your question so please drop the angst and just specify the question in less ambiguous terms.

[legzr1]

You appear to like the sound of your own voice so rather than encourage another rambling post from you I'll be brief.

You waded in with generalisations for which you then apologised.

Very good, leave it there.

You (quite correctly and fairly obviously) recommend people listen before buying - something you didn't do before buying those Eltax boxes.

You've removed the link to the miracle software that does amazing things with compressed (lossy) music files and clipped (saturated, squared sine wave) content.

Provide the link and I'll highlight the parts I have issue with.

I noted you linked to DIY audio a few times - I love their tag line: products for fanatics, by fanatics.


Your comments on B&W - just absolutely laughable.

[TonyRPH]

Globs said:

BTW the power rating is also ridiculous, IMO they'd be toast at a fraction of that power so thanks for bringing them up again.

I recall the first time I powered them up, my jaw must have hit the floor in disbelief at their awful boxy sound and lack of resolution. They were from Richer Sounds and I didn't get a chance to listen first. Should have returned them but they were cheap and town was busy, time consuming and parking costs. Later a Maplin two way crossover improved them as did stuffing with wool but the drivers are terrible. No bass either BTW. Awful things. Now used as expendable test items. Still the worst speakers in the house by far - my bundled Sony music station ones are much better - but a lot better than they arrived.

Truly awful. Literally shocking. Took me a while to come to terms with buying separate, brand name speakers that were that dismal.

So you, an engineer walked into Richer Sounds and bought (unheard) this pair of Eltax speakers with spring clip terminals and you expected them to have a proper 2nd order crossover?

One look behind the grille would have revealed that they are far from Hi-Fi speakers.
Indeed, a glance around the back would suggest the same thing, given the screw hook for wall mounting.

Quite how you could make so much of them being bad speakers I don't really understand.

IIRC, these were also around £40 at the time (probably less).





And then you go on to cite quotes as to how wonderful class D amplifiers are - but those opinions are purely subjective, and based on what?
By comparison to what?

Sometimes people will buy something that far exceeds their expectations, and will immediately post on the their favourite forum to rave about it, which then starts an entire process of others doing the same.

However 'x' weeks later, reality sets in and they realise that perhaps it's not as good as first thought - but do any of these people go back and say as much?
I doubt it.

I've seen this all the time, on DIYAudio in particular.

I've lost count of the threads where someone posts "ooh have you heard xyz opamp in abc device? It's wonderful!" and then all the sheeple rush off to try the same thing and a massive trend kicks off. It's for this reason I rarely frequent DIYAudio these days.

In any case - this sums up my (hopefully) final post on this thread.

[legzr1]

TonyRPH said:

So you, an engineer walked into Richer Sounds and bought (unheard) this pair of Eltax speakers with spring clip terminals and you expected them to have a proper 2nd order crossover?

One look behind the grille would have revealed that they are far from Hi-Fi speakers.
Indeed, a glance around the back would suggest the same thing, given the screw hook for wall mounting.

Quite how you could make so much of them being bad speakers I don't really understand.

IIRC, these were also around £40 at the time (probably less).





And then you go on to cite quotes as to how wonderful class D amplifiers are - but those opinions are purely subjective, and based on what?
By comparison to what?

Sometimes people will buy something that far exceeds their expectations, and will immediately post on the their favourite forum to rave about it, which then starts an entire process of others doing the same.

However 'x' weeks later, reality sets in and they realise that perhaps it's not as good as first thought - but do any of these people go back and say as much?
I doubt it.

I've seen this all the time, on DIYAudio in particular.

I've lost count of the threads where someone posts "ooh have you heard xyz opamp in abc device? It's wonderful!" and then all the sheeple rush off to try the same thing and a massive trend kicks off. It's for this reason I rarely frequent DIYAudio these days.

In any case - this sums up my (hopefully) final post on this thread.

Wonderfully summed up and an excellent insight into the weird world of DIYAudio - I made the mistake of regularly visiting some time ago when thinking of moving from NOS. DAC to the latest and greatest DSD DACS - overnight the greatest ever moved from being the greatest to the poorest and then back to the greatest with corroborating white papers and thousands of words in techno-garble.
I often wondered if they actually listened to the kit or simply sat measuring it then reporting results to the massed hoards waiting in anticipating for a 0.01% drop in THD.

[MarshPhantom]

Globs said:

legzr1 said:

you could avoid seeming to damn a whole manufacturer (Eltax) because of your experience of a cheap speaker, the model number you seem to avoid mentioning.

Do you recommend everyone avoiding something like an M4 because the 2003 Mini D was a bit st?

Thanks for the welcome to PH but I've been around long enough to realise condescension and arrogance doesn't always have to be a prerequisite

If you read my original post you'll note that I express my educated opinion about a few items around the OP's original question, but YOU chose to attack ME with the phrase:

legzr1 said:

So many sweeping statements, so little time to correct them all.

Which could be seen as condescending and arrogant. You then go on to accuse me (multiple times) of the very thing you just did. There's a name for that.
I can't help that you have taken immediate umbrage to my advice for the OP and you appear to continue to carry that chip when I prove my point with examples, articles, facts and figures. What did you expect me to do?

legzr1 said:

the model number you seem to avoid mentioning.

Can't win with you can I! Lucky for you I still have them, relegated as test speakers on the work bench before I connect up anything worthwhile to a new amp.


BTW the power rating is also ridiculous, IMO they'd be toast at a fraction of that power so thanks for bringing them up again.

I recall the first time I powered them up, my jaw must have hit the floor in disbelief at their awful boxy sound and lack of resolution. They were from Richer Sounds and I didn't get a chance to listen first. Should have returned them but they were cheap and town was busy, time consuming and parking costs. Later a Maplin two way crossover improved them as did stuffing with wool but the drivers are terrible. No bass either BTW. Awful things. Now used as expendable test items. Still the worst speakers in the house by far - my bundled Sony music station ones are much better - but a lot better than they arrived.

Truly awful. Literally shocking. Took me a while to come to terms with buying separate, brand name speakers that were that dismal.

legzr1 said:

Specs, graphs and long-winded technical papers are all well and good but I'm under the impression that re-hashed Tripath digital is 'ok', cheap and efficient but better sound comes from Class A/B transistors. This impression based on actually listening to them

You dismissed my claims (see above) so I merely qualified them. Of course you don't accept the qualification, that's how belief systems work.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/why-do-we-...

regardless I have still backed up my 'rubbish and sweeping generalisations' as you put it with specs, facts and technical papers so you can dismiss them too.
Additionally there are a number of modulation schemes for class D, the TI ones are not the same as the ST/Tripath and a lot of the cheap ones suffer from poor layout, underspecced inductors and cheap capacitors. When given £10 worth of decent components and a decent SMPS they can really shine.

As for your damning faint praise of 'ok' this differs from seasoned HiFi enthusiasts and electronics experts who have tried modern class D amps that I gave links to and say things like:

Links said:

jahshines said:

You know, this is the best amp I have ever heard. I can't believe more people aren't raving about it. Lovely clear liquid midrange, bottom end grunt, crystalline highs.

denbret said:

Me too this is probably the best amp I've heard.

wdecho said:

I do not believe it is even going to be a close race. I have the Sure AA-AB32281 2X200W and the Sanwu TDA7498, not close. I have over 20 amps tube and SS, most high end builds. I am still in awe what $40 buys.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong (how can an opinion ever be wrong?) I was merely responding to your condemnation of my chip based class D recommendation by demonstrating that my viewpoint is shared by many others. Again - surely you invited me to do this?

legzr1 said:

Reading between the lines it was quite obvious what you were driving at re: Eltax - the speakers you had were st, ergo no recommendation for any Eltax.

Reading between lines?? I clearly explained - in detail - the deficiencies I found and clearly cited that as the reason I cannot recommend Eltax.

legzr1 said:

B&W boxy?

Are you including the 803D, 802D2 and 800D in the over-generalisation?
If not, list the speakers you find boxy.

No I don't think I will. I've spent too much time qualifying stuff for you already and all you do is dismiss it. It's not my job to do your homework, I merely pointed stuff out that you them immediately called foul on. I have backed up enough of my statements thank-you.

I've listened to B&W's best - with friends - at shows and in stores - and they clearly sounded boxy to all of us. I've also read reviews where they explain how the new model is less boxy than the first, but if you read the review of the previous model there's no mention of the boxiness. It's probably not in all models sure, but boxiness is not excusable for a modern speaker from a prestige manufacturer IMO. We also listen to many Dali, Tannoy, Proac, little firms too - Linn and Naim and none of them were similarly afflicted. Boxiness was identified and solutions several decades ago: There is no excuse for anyone, including Eltax and B&W.

legzr1 said:

I've asked you more than once how it does this when the overdriven digital clipping is embedded in the data but you keep avoiding a straight answer.

Here you again accuse me of evasion but I answered your question as fairly as I could:

You stated "remove embedded clipping". "Embedded clipping" is not a technical term, for me I interpreted it as things that are clipped that were embedded within the mix. E.g. a distorted guitar or the square wave of a synth.

You will need to explain what you mean by 'embedded clipping" for me to answer, I'm not a mind reader and you obviously think it has a different meaning to the one I interpreted. I have read back your question and my reply and do not find it evasive, I find it clearly answers what I interpreted as your question so please drop the angst and just specify the question in less ambiguous terms.

[Globs]

legzr1 said:

: ad hominem deleted

You waded in with generalisations for which you then apologised.

: blame for passing on hard won advice

: off topic

: sweeping general attack possible the worlds most concentrated collection of HiFi experts.

: Laughing at my actual B&W listening experience (after previously claiming listening is king)

Well, I actually stood/stand by my original post and backed it with facts, figures, articles and datasheets. Engineering data that you dismiss in favour of your 'impression' of listening to unspecified. You then process to accuse me of rubbish and generalisation. This is actually documented in the thread BTW so I fail to see why you are trying to say the opposite. You'd have been better reading those articles, there's a lot of measuring, listening, knowledge and wisdom in there that you have ignored.

Here you are lauding your impressions and saying how listening is more important (except apparently when I listen to Class-D, Eltax or those B&Ws I heard).

legzr1 said:

Specs, graphs and long-winded technical papers are all well and good but I'm under the impression that re-hashed Tripath digital is 'ok', cheap and efficient but better sound comes from Class A/B transistors. This impression based on actually listening to them.

Please start a new thread if you'd like to discuss Mastering, The Loudness War, workaround and solutions. Lossy compression is a different subject although there is evidence of mastering toward that format, it has however nothing to do with audio compression or clipping of audio waveforms.
Nowhere in my reply to the OP did I mention this, you brought this subject up so please stop derailing this thread.

Perhaps if you actually read DiyAudio you'd realise that is where much expertise of the top HiFi industry goes to discuss audio, people like Thorsten Loesch, Lynn Olson etc, dismissing probably the best minds in HiFi doesn't help your argument TBH.

TonyRPH said:

So you, an engineer walked into Richer Sounds and bought (unheard) this pair of Eltax speakers with spring clip terminals and you expected them to have a proper 2nd order crossover?

One look behind the grille would have revealed that they are far from Hi-Fi speakers.
Indeed, a glance around the back would suggest the same thing, given the screw hook for wall mounting.

While I respect your opinions in general Tony I must point out that the replacements, the excellent Tannoy mR Cherry ALSO has spring clip terminals and a wall hook. They weren't that much more either.
The Sony speakers on my old CMT-EX1 are far better too, and they have no plug at all, just a thin wire fed through the downward firing reflex port LOL. So I like the concept of your theory but I have two examples where it is falsified.

You are right however about the Eltax's being a mistake, I admit to being duped into buying utter utter rubbish!
I appreciate the leaps to defend a large Danish loudspeaker manufacturer who should know better but my recommendation remains for the British Tannoy. Also of course Linn, KEF, Naim. In fact KEF and Tannoy were at one time world leaders, and in some respects still are. Not everyone worship's the Holy Eltax:

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/eltax
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/eltax-monitor-...
http://www.reviewcentre.com/review183033.html
https://www.avforums.com/threads/does-anyone-know-...

TonyRPH said:

And then you go on to cite quotes as to how wonderful class D amplifiers are - but those opinions are purely subjective, and based on what?
By comparison to what?

Sometimes people will buy something that far exceeds their expectations, and will immediately post on the their favourite forum to rave about it, which then starts an entire process of others doing the same.

However 'x' weeks later, reality sets in and they realise that perhaps it's not as good as first thought - but do any of these people go back and say as much?
I doubt it.

I apologies for suggesting to the OP that he investigates a new, cheap form of amplifier (class-D) that I have listened to and I and others find to be very accurate. I did qualify this with the need for a few mods as few big companies have incorporated these chips into their products.

My citations were in response to being told that Class-D was just 'ok', my original post merely noted class D in passing:

Globs said:

For decades we've known that triodes are the most linear devices we have, and their performance is only matched by modern class D chips such as the TDA3116 etc.

Indeed, my suggestions could have resulted in someone blowing £20 or so (+ a suitable PSU) and having some fun with the new technology.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/271889387991
[sarc] Congratulations on trying to shut that down, HiFi is best left to the saleman and should always be big and expensive. [/sarc]

Incidentally the DiyAudio Class D thread is many years old and contains many contributors who have far greater experience of listening to and building hi-end commercial transistor and tube amplifiers than either of us.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/
It appears that you and Leg are working from the premise that you believe the technology to be inferior and are just throwing up any random excuses to justify that position. Please reconsider, you are missing out on some excellent and cheap technology which is great fun to tinker with and my listening indicates can be fantastic.


Sorry that you are out of this thread Tony, the double-teaming with legzr1 was very stimulating and I always appreciate your input.

[legzr1]

Globs said:

This is actually documented in the thread BTW

Oh yes, the whole thread is here, un-edited for all to read and digest.

.

I'll start another thread where you can provide the link you deleted earlier and have avoided posting again.
You've gone quite a way in destroying this thread.

[Globs]

legzr1 said:

You've gone quite a way in destroying this thread.

Really?

I recommended brands and good second hand buys to look out for and gave some general advice about amplifiers which you can still read in my first post.

You then emitted a pithy dismissal of my whole response, each point which I then proceeded to back up with data. It was your arrogance that turned a simple, single post of mine into the destruction of your unfounded impressions and opinions.
Since then your only response has been that your listening trumps all, but my listening was somehow laughable and worthless.

Unlike Tony you don't seem to have the depth of understanding to appreciate my initial post or any of the wide variety of rich references I provided and you have failed to establish a single point despite your initial sweeping statement of rubbish that you started to attack me with.

So rather then blaming others I suggest you look back at your unrelenting criticism of my sound, experienced and researched advice, in all of which you have been proven wrong point by point, and notice that you have singularly failed to answer the OP's question. Your sole contribution has been to stick your head up Tony's arse when he actually answered the question and recommended a sensible course of action for the OP.

Get a grip, Leg.