I use a SET rig, and I think it sounds as good or better than any high power rig I've heard. You have to get the right speakers for it. I prefer a direct radiator sound, and draw the line at front-loaded horns. My preference at this time is the Lowther single-driver speaker system. I drive it with a 2 watt 45 SET amp.
I personally think that the "Power Race" is one of the most absurd things that has happened to audio since the CD was invented. The more I've lowered my amp power and increased speaker efficiency, the better sound I've gotten. |
That's good Alex. If you have some further ideas that could be of help in this matter, we are all ears. |
I can pull off 105db peaks with my 2 watts, on my Lowther EX3 Voigt Pipes. I can also get right down to 40Hz without the weaknesses that are normally associated with Lowthers, due to my cabinet mods. Yes, they have limitations in the lowest octave.
So for my use, this SPL and bass response is totally adequate in my 24'x14' room with a 16' vaulted ceiling. Add to that, that these speakers make most $25k speakers sound like they have a blanket over them, and that makes you a little more forgiving if there is a little coloration here or there.
As for the "euphonic distortion", I've got to address this, because I am getting really tired of hearing that. First, all SET amps have a specific distortion profile that puts nearly all of its total harmonic distortion into one area of 2nd Order harmonics. Generally less than 1% total. Single driver speakers also have a distortion profile where their total harmonic distortion is mostly in the 2nd Order, and in the case of Lowthers, slightly less than 1%.
Now, since these amps and speakers have this particular relationship in their distortion profiles, their distortions will either be additive, or subtractive, based upon where they line up in terms of phase angle. If the amp distortion profile is 180 degrees out of phase with the speaker distortion profile, the amp AND speaker distortions will largely be cancelled, and provide a lower SYSTEM distortion than ANY other combination of amp/speaker. If they are not 180 degrees out, then reversing the speaker leads will put them 180 degrees out. Even if they fall in between 0 and 180 degrees, there is a medium level of distortion cancellation to be had. This is something that is not available to ANY other amp/speaker combination, and is the reason for the SET/Single-driver synergy that can provide lower SYSTEM distortion than anything else that can be put together regardless of price, because this combination actually causes a self-cancelling of distortion between the speaker and amp, in real time, during music playback. Not just on a lab bench.
Any time that you go to a push-pull, or SS amp, or multi driver speakers with crossover, you have distortion profiles that are spread out all across the harmonic spectrum in varying amounts, that do not lend themselves to this distortion cancelling synergy. This is why total SYSTEM distortion in all other systems is always additive. And has distortion components in the odd-orders that are unpleasant.
So next time you guys want to talk about "euphonic distortion" with SET amps, think about the fact that the "euphonic distortion" is kicking the living hell out of your amp/speaker combination's distortion profile, and makes it look like a distortion generator in comparison.
If you want to find out more about this phenomenon, there are treatises written about it on the web. That's where I found out about it a long time ago. |
I think it's funny to say that SET enthusiasts make up things like I stated above, when it is plain that others make up terms like "euphonic distortion", when there is no such thing as "euphonic distortion". Euphonic distortion is a term made up by people who follow specifications, and can't figure out why an amp that doesn't spec like a SS amp can eat it for lunch. That's all it is. A term made up to explain something the number crunchers can't explain. That's because number crunchers alway look at everything in a vacuum, and not in concert with the other stuff it is working with. A bench test is fine with them. It even took us years to get the number crunchers to realize that current capability had something to do with driving a speaker. Now we're still having trouble with the vestigial remains of the "specs race" of the 1970s. Just look at all the amps out there that have damping factors of 1000 and distortion of .00001%. That is simply a result of negative feedback. There is no way any amp can get these numbers without negative feedback, whether they be SS or otherwise. Now we know that negative feedback is counter-productive to good sound. But does that stop these amp makers from using prodigious amounts of it? No. They are selling it to the number crunchers.
When an amp delivers good sound quality and has bench measurements that don't stack up to the negative feedback amps, then there is a scurry of activity to figure out some explanation for it, hence the "euphonic distortion" moniker. After all, there is no way an amp with 1% distortion could sound as good, right? Wrong.
This is not targeted at you Alex, so don't feel like I'm attacking you with this. I'm venting my spleen.
I am giving a feasible explanation to the number crunchers as to how there is a reason that they can understand, in their meager little brains, that there are things that happen outside their little test facility. Things that they didn't even think to test, or even realized existed. Things that they don't even have the foggiest idea are even existing, far from the idea that they even would know how to go about testing them. Number crunchers bring only the lowest form of understanding to the forefront. Virtually every single number crunching spec has resulted in the sonic degradation of the products that followed the results of these tests.
So you can see that I have a very dim view of these number crunchers. And if you look at their track record, you'll see I have very good reason to take this view.
So to get back to the point, the concentration of this harmonic distortion at the 2nd harmonic in both amp and speaker presents a unique possibility for self-cancelling distortion components. Not that every single bit of distortion will be cancelled, but that possibly even a majority will.
I took this position to make an explanation that could show a quantification of this phenomenon, because it is an attempt to explain something that has caused much malignment of the SET amplifier and its enthusiasts, as "lovers of certain types of distortion". This is patently false. SET enthusiasts are some of the most rabid lovers of clear clean and natural sound, in the audiophile world. They just go against the grain of the "normal" way of thinking, which includes ultra inefficient speakers and big boat anchor SS amplifiers with copious amounts of negative feedback. The term "golden midrange" didn't come out of thin air. The reason why it's "golden" has nothing to do with euphonic distortion components, but rather, the lack of them. Most good SET amps have a glorious midrange, that would send even the best SS amps running for cover. The only reason that they are limited to "golden" in the midrange, comes from the limitations of the output transformers. Of course, in my case, I have a SET without any output transformers, and it is one of only a few that can make that claim(only Berning can do it). So my "golden midrange" extends from the top to bottom. And believe me, it does.
Now SETs are not perfect, and I never claimed they were. But they do have the best midrange of any amps there are, and if the transformers were out of the way, they would kill the SS market. At least for the non-number cruncher types.
It's not some kind of SET user delusion. It is a real thing. Whether the number crunchers accept it or not is not of any consequence to me. Their way has always led to a lowering of the bar, not an improvement. If someone wants to move beyond the ordinary, they have to go to the extraordinary, and this means getting out of the mainstream boat. Anyone out of the mainstream is immediately looked at with suspicion because he is not following what all the other lemmings are following. There must be something wrong with him, they all say. Far from it. In this case, there is something very right with him.
Many people cannot move out of the "comfort zone" of peer acceptability. They will never lead, but will only follow when enough others go that way. That is the mark of mediocrity.
If you want to get to the edge of performance, you have to go to the edge to get it.
It is easy for me to understand that what I say is not easily acceptable to most. That doesn't bother me a bit, and in fact I wear it like a badge of honor.
What I stated above about distortion cancelling is an attempt at explaining what is happening, to the naysayers. Even at worst, it is no more incorrect than the term "euphonic distortion", and it may even, in fact, be a correct explanation of why SET amps and single-driver speakers have the "golden" sound that they do. I can tell you with impunity that 64 bipolar transistors running an 84db 5-way speaker will never get you there. I've been around long enough to know that for sure.
|
Alex, your point about single drivers and their covering a wide range, relates to potentially higher intermodulation distortion. This is another thing that has some "questioned" characteristics.
A diaphragm microphone recieves all the frequencies at once, and is also a single element. It is having the high frequencies modulated onto it, while the lower frequencies are making large excursions of the diaphragm, just like the single driver speaker does. Is it possible that the single driver speaker more accurately produces the wave, because it has this inverse relationship to the recording microphone? Possibly.
As far as what amp/speaker is better, this is related directly to the end user, and his knowledge of what good sound is. If the only exposure he has, is to "spec wonders" then he will think that is the way to go, because they don't sound terrible, they just don't sound as good as some other things that are made to sound good, not spec good.
SET's are limited in power, and in speaker selection. This is not for everyone. But if someone is in the market for very high quality sound, and looks carefully at the available products, and makes good selections for synergistic coupling, a very good result can be obtained. It will not be real deep in the bass, nor very loud, but it can get pretty loud.
This SPL and deep bass response thing is a big hurdle to overcome. It's like these are the only things that mean anything to some people. If it won't do 20Hz in the bass, people think it is not worthy of consideration. If it can't shake the house, it's no good. So they buy things that have these capabilities, but sound like there is a blanket over the speaker. It is more often than not, a big muffled thud and sizzle, like the home version of one of these modern car audio systems.
Most people who heard a SET system for the first time would have their jaws drop. They would all-of-a-sudden stop thinking about 20Hz extension and 115db SPL.
They would finally be hearing music instead of hi-fi. Funny as it may sound, I really don't think that alot of audiophiles even know what can be achieved with an audio system. (Ducking the tomatoes and running for cover!) Most are satisfied with what they can easily get at the local emporium, that got a good review. Then they think they have about as good as it gets. Natural way of thinking, but not correct.
There is no free lunch, and you don't get a free lunch with SETs either. What you do with SETs, is you forget about the Hi-Fi stuff, and get a healthy dose of music. It's not about bass response. It's not about SPL. It's not about fireworks. It's about music. As crystal clear and clean as you can get. When you start in with trying to get all the Hi-Fi hijinks, then you move away from the music to get it.
The crying shame about electrostatic speakers is that you have to have high power to drive them, and you have to get a veiled amp as a result. Oh, I know, people don't think they have a veiled amp. Listen to a SET on single drivers and you'll find out how veiled a high power amp is.
Up until now, SETs have always had a hard time with extension, because of transformer limitations. But that is now no longer the case. OTL has come to SET amplification, and full frequency extension is possible now with SETs. But the really costly SETs, with excellent iron can do a pretty good job of extension too.
I'd say that SETs are for the real musical enthusiast, or the advanced listener. They are not for readers of audio magazines, and car stereo types. This is also why SET users are almost exclusively analog users. They are after what is beyond the reach of typical gear. |
Alright Alex, give us your theory. I'm getting tired of waiting for De Lima to respond to your email. My curiosity is getting the better of me.
Maybe we can discuss it while we're waiting for De Lima to respond. |
Hi guys. Thanks for the responses. Yes, I do get quite carried away at certain times. However, my two or three posts are like a little wind in a hurricane of thoughts to the contrary. I don't expect to really get anywhere with this. The whole market is stacked the other way.
Brulee, I apologize of my last 4 sentences of my other post seemed offensive. I feel that sometimes a little "shock factor" can be useful to stir up people's thought processes.
Alex, regarding my attempt to quantify, while casting aspersions on quantification, that is a valid criticism, but it was an apparently meager attempt to communicate to the measurement people in words and concepts they might relate to. They want to hear hard reasons and even measurements if they can get them, so I gave a concept. I have no doubt that if this theory proves true, that there would be a runaway train of measurement people sacrificing the other needed qualities of the amp and speaker, to get this particular measurement. Sorry, but I do feel that they are hopeless.
I don't promote SETs/Single Drivers to everyone, because they are not for everyone. Some could not abide the certain problems associated with a system like I have. I am very aware of the shortcomings of them, because I live with a system like that every day. I would be the first to say they are not perfect, nor are they even close to perfect.
Regarding the single-driver distortion issue, they are in fact a very low distortion driver. This is due in part to very high magnet strength, extremely low moving mass, and short excursion. This makes the single-driver much more responsive than the typical cone driver, and have lower harmonic distortion than other cone drivers. As far as high frequency reproduction goes, my Lowthers are flat to above 20kHz, so I don't see a rolloff problem there. And they are clearer in the very high frequency than any dome tweeter that I've ever heard. In addition, the hysteresis is very low, due to the things I stated above, and the fact that no crossovers are present in the system. The supposed real weak points of single drivers(excluding deep bass response) is the potential for intermod and doppler distortions, and high frequency dispersion due to beaming. And these are real concerns. I would only say that these things turn out to be less problematic to my ears, than the problems associated with multi-driver systems, which number in the hundreds. For every "fix" you get from increasing the number of drivers, you get 10 more problems. When you try to "fix" those, you get 10 more. It never ends, and you move away from the music. The speaker design becomes a race to meet the expected technical aspects of frequency response, and dispersion, and loses focus of what it was supposed to be in the first place.
I may be highly opinionated and passionate, but I'm not decieved. If multi-drivers really did what they claim to do, then I wouldn't be saying jack-shit about this subject. The fact is that they sacrifice more than they gain. It's a loss-loaded movement. For every gain, there are multiple losses. And the losses are of the most harmful kind. And again it goes back to what they consider important in the design, which is paper specifications that sell speakers to the magazine reading consumer. I'd be willing to bet that very few people that even read this post have ever laid an ear on a good single driver speaker. Except for full range electrostats, and they are also a single driver speaker. People seem to think that they are fine. The only difference is the diaphram shape and size. They are low distortion, high magnetic strength, and very light moving mass, with very low excursion. And they generally have the same problems with very low bass, and wide dispersion, and even intermod.
Now if people are happy with their CD,SS, multi-driver systems, that's great. For them. In my case, I'm not happy with that. I've had that numerous times, and know just exactly what it is. I want a closer interaction with the music than is provided with that kind of system. I have found a way to do that. Would I like to get even better? Sure, and I look for ways that I can improve these things, and make mods, and even look at other roads to do it. I've picked my poison, and I know where the deadly parts are. I can live with these, at this time, until I can find a less deadly poison.
The whole impetus for this tirade I've gone on, is to confront the issue that is frequently being pushed to the fore, that somehow SET amps and single driver speakers are some kind of distortion machines, that "euphonic distortion" fetishists use, and that they just don't compare to the "big time" systems. That claim is wrong, and it is stated over and over on this forum, with nobody refuting it. That is over. I will continue to refute that issue. It is interesting that when SET/Single-driver systems are relegated to the distortion bin, which is fairly common on this board, nobody says anything about it, they just accept it as truth. But, when somebody says that CD systems with big SS amps and multi-driver systems don't cut it, watch out for the tomatoes. Then it is considered intolerant of others' systems. Snobbery. But, what is the implied statement, when the terms "euphonic distortion" and and the like, are used? It is that they somehow know that SET people don't know what "accurate" sound is, and that we are into certain kinds of "inaccuracy" that really isn't as good as their "low measurement" systems are. Is that not snobbery? Of course it is. But it is tolerated because it is the opinion of the masses. When I go the other way, it raises eyebrows. Double standard? You betcha. Then I am asked for "proof", not in terms of musical performance, but in measurement terms. Case closed. They are not interested in musical performance, they are interested in measurements that satisfy their reliance on numbers, and not their ears.
No system is a "one size fits all" system. There is room for many kinds of systems for different people. I only take exception when it is presumed that a good type of system is cast into a "lower" category because of the attitudes that are created by this numbers race. So I gave a little dose of the same medicine to everybody else, so they could experience what it feels like. And the responses were based upon my statements either appearing to be intolerant and snobbish, or not being borne out by measured data. Was this not a predictable set of responses? Of course. I went against the accepted grain of high end thinking. Thus, my premises are met with criticism and said to be unfounded in measurable scientific terms. Perfectly natural and predictable, given the mind-set that pervades high end audio today.
I am inherently a person who doesn't mind "rocking the boat" when I know I have a valid point. I am used to being met with resistance, and it's happened all my life. Some people may read this, and take a look at what I said, and seek out a system like this to listen to. If that happens, I have done my job. As far as the others go, I doubt I'll ever get through to them, and I'll always be considered to be a "fringe element" type to them. That's ok. I like being out on the edge. I've always been bored, when I'm in the middle of the "comfort zone". |
Thanks, Craig! I appreciate your support and participation on this issue. I'm glad you decided to take a look at this thread, and contribute the article that I couldn't find, and your well-placed responses. |
Unsound, you're right, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing decision. And I try not to say(although I am guilty of implying) that others should not go in different directions. Heck, if they really like something else, then they should have it. I mean, if I was a pipe organ junkie, and liked to hear it at live cathedral volume levels, I wouldn't have the system that I do. That would be trying to listen to music that struck right at the heart of the weaknesses in my current system.
I'll give you an example. Bishopwill and I used to have a running discussion about the need for deep bass. I stuck to my guns, and when he wanted a set of speakers for his bedroom system, he told me he would try a set of Lowthers because I was so high on them. Now this is a guy that actually gave what I am saying a shot, in his own home. This is the first guy I know about that actually listened instead of making a pre-judgment. I respect that greatly. And you know, he actually liked them alot. He didn't wind up getting them, because the cabinets were too big for the bedroom, but he became aware of what the single driver sound can be. And he liked it alot. And he is an organ music lover who really needs deep bass for the music he likes to listen to. No, the Lowthers didn't do that, but he really appreciated them for what they did do well.Now he knows first hand what this type of speaker can and cannot do. I don't fault him at all for not getting them. He had his reasons that were completely valid.
I'm very glad that you are interested in auditioning a system of this type. It may or may not be for you. But at least you will know what these systems can do. I strongly recommend using a vinyl source for the audition, because these systems can be very revealing, and may pass a little too much of the digital nasties to be palatable. At least that is my opinion.
I know sometimes I come on very strong about certain issues, but I'm not trying to be an S.O.B.
Sometimes it just takes a little extra zest to get people to try something different.
I just felt that I needed to get some of this stuff off my chest, because it was getting to me that people actually think I am listening to a distorted system. Jeez! I don't like distortion any more than the next guy. Euphonic or otherwise. I like it clean, and that's why I felt so compelled to say something about it. My system is clean, man. It is not full of any kind of distortion. It's just as clean as anything out there, and maybe cleaner. I want people to know that they are not moving to a distorted system, just because they select a SET amp or a single driver speaker. I wouldn't have to have said any of this if there hadn't been this movement to "tag" the SET amps with the distortion label. Sorry if I over did it. |
|
Those Brits never did learn how to make a proper oil seal. Everything British leaks oil. Even Rolls Royces need drip pans underneath. |
Alex. De Lima has some actual measurement charts on the link that Clueless provided. |
9000rpm is a hell of alot of rpms out of a small block Chevy! I had a 1961 Austin Healey Bugeye Sprite that had a highly modified 950cc(58 cid.) inline-4 cylinder pushrod engine, that I could coax 8600 rpm out of, before valve float. It made 104hp, which is about 1.8hp per cubic inch. It weighed 990 pounds. Had 4.22 rear gears. It did under 14 sec in the 1/4 mile, and I could beat Corvettes and E-type Jags in stop-light drags. That wasn't the purpose, it was built for H-Production SCCA road racing, and the real strength was in the corners. I used to eat Lotus Elans for lunch. Those were the good old days! Nobody ever expected much from a 1 liter Sprite. Boy, were they surprised. |
He must be running a billet crank. I was limited by class rules to the stock cast crank, nitrided and balanced. It was known with my type motor, that with the stock crank, the engine would come apart at about 9000 rpm, due to crank whip. I even ran an "outlaw" steel main bearing cap on the center journal, to help stabilize the crank. I set the valve spring tension at 8600, so the valves would float at that rpm, and act like a rev limiter. I didn't have high enough lift to worry that I would clash a valve into a piston, even when the valves floated. The chamber was deep enough to keep that from happening.
What kind of pushrods can handle 12000 rpm? We had trouble getting our Lotus 23B over 11500 with DOHC. |
